the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posts by Anonymous Subdidact | joined 26 May 2008 | 175


posted 13 Feb 2004, 15:02 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

Yes, that is very similar to what is prophied in Revelation. Some people believe that when the Rapture occurs and all of the Christians are taken up to be with Christ that everyone left on Earth will still not believe, or they won't be able to. Also, at some point the Lamb (Christ) is supposed to return in His full glory. I'm at work, so I don't have m Bible with me at the moment. I haven't been through Revelation in a while, so i'm a little rusty. view post


posted 03 Mar 2004, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionHow did you get here? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Found out from Loose. view post


posted 03 Mar 2004, 04:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

the canadian cover for TDTCB is awesome, highly recommended. amazon.ca is a good bet. publishers in the US always insist on lame "fantasy-ish" covers, maybe it translates into sales? i dunno view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Anonymous, Subdidact

I have Chasm City by Alastair Reynolds, The Gunslinger by Stephen King and Last Light of the Sun by Guy Gavriel Kay on the way from Amazon.ca. Like you, Edge, I was trying to decide between a Reynolds book and Illium. Heard a lot of good things about it but decided to go with Reynolds as Revelation Space was amazing. Also currently rereading the Return of the King. Love seeing how Jackson threw in so many lines from the book, and even gave them to different characters if the original character didn't make it to the big screen. Definitely shows that Jackson and his crew were faithful to the books even if they couldn't adapt it scene for scene. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

Morality is a social construct. It’s a necessity for the continued survival of that society. The morality of an individual is usually based on the ‘inherited’ morality of the society, adjusted for personal experience. If your individual morality is too far from the moral of the society, like with Ted Bundy, you end up in conflict with that society. Sometimes you manage to convince everybody (or enough) that you are right and they are wrong (i.e. the US Civil Rights Movement) but mostly you end up dead, in jail or excluded from that society. So ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ is not just personal, but influenced by the rest of society. When you judge that something is right or wrong, whether it’s something done by yourself or your neighbour, or someone in another time/place/culture, you do that based on your personal moral which in turn is influenced by the morality of your society. If you personally believe that killing someone because they irritate you is acceptable, it would be hypocritical of you to say that that doing so is wrong just because everyone else thinks so. You might choose not to kill people irritating you because you know that otherwise you’ll end up punished by the society. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t do it because it’s ‘wrong’, but because it’s ‘inconvenient’ to do so. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 16:04 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

It looks like TWP was moved back to June, does anyone know the revised release date? view post


posted 24 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Anonymous, Subdidact

MOI is really cool. You can't go wrong with holy knights (i.e like the Grey Swords). :D view post


posted 26 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Anonymous, Subdidact

just finish it once, you'll like it. view post


A quick question. posted 03 May 2004, 18:05 in Author Q & AA quick question. by Anonymous, Subdidact

How are ya? :lol: It was really nice chatting with you at Genrecon! We'll have to meet up again sometime soon! Prefereably not Sarnia. ;) Hope you had a pleasant drive home. Marcy view post


posted 03 May 2004, 22:05 in Author Q & AA quick question. by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Sovin Nai":ofvg0w9i]Welcome! While not the author (obviously), I would like to extend a welcome and hearty handshake. I'd add a laurel, but we're fresh out.[/quote:ofvg0w9i] Well, thank you! It's always nice to find a nice, new forum of folks. I don't know how much I'll be able to hang out here, but when I'm deep in procrastination mode, I'll make it one of my stops. What does that tell you about what I'm doing right now? LOL! Nice to meet y'all. ;) Marcy view post


posted 01 Jun 2004, 13:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionHow did you get here? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Recommended by none other than Steven Erikson....how could i refuse?! view post


posted 09 Jun 2004, 07:06 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeJust bought my beautiful hardcover by Anonymous, Subdidact

I agree with pretty much everything said so far :) The British cover of tDtCB isn't as good as the original, though still ok... and yes, the US GotM cover is crap ;) view post


posted 16 Jun 2004, 10:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Picked up Shadowkings by Michael Cobley and Assasins Apprentice by Robin Hobb yesterday. About 100 pgs into shadowkings and its fairly standard fantasy so far, but ive heard there are some cool twists in this book, so should be good to see what happens. Also, what are all your opinions on the Farseer Trilogy? I heard good things about it at the Malazan board, so i picked up the first book as well. One last thing....Amazon is now saying A Feast For Crow will be out August 2005! Anyone here as furious about this as me? I really hope this is a mistake on amazon's behalf.... view post


posted 16 Jun 2004, 16:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Anonymous, Subdidact

I started with Slackware back in 96 when the installation interface was a nightmare. I've since used Redhat (And the majority of ppl I have talked to still say version 7.0 is the best), Gentoo, Fedora, Corel (no more), Mandrake and Debian. Most of those I haven't used very much, though. I like Gentoo as it has some neat features that it borrowed from BSD. For all my classes that involve Linux we use Redhat 7.0 view post


posted 27 Jun 2004, 19:06 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

I can't remember the specifics of the SI critiques, but on the basis of your description of the debate, I'll definitely keep the door open on psi. Given the success of the etiological picture of the world that science has sketched for us, and the tendentiousness that seems to invariably dog research into the paranormal, I have to say I'm pessemistic. At the very least, the burden of proof lies with the psi realists. Backwards causality at the level of dried goods? Claims that big require exhaustive experimentation and review. A couple quick questions regarding your idealism: 1) What do you make of the intentionality or aboutness of experience? and 2) Given that we all have perspectives, just what would you say our perspective is [i:7xu3l020]on[/i:7xu3l020]? view post


posted 29 Jun 2004, 06:06 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:1x1o0or2]I should have said 'anomolous' causality. (Backward causality has to do with the precognitive stuff, doesn't it?) Either way, the sheer chutzpah of these claims makes Ockam's razor an enemy of parapsycologists (bigger even than the Amazing Randi!). [/quote:1x1o0or2] Heh, Randi is as much a threat to parapsychologists as Uri Geller is a threat to CSICOP. ;) [quote:1x1o0or2]All things being equal, the simplest most mundane explanation wins (pending further data, of course) - which in this case, is some version of experimental error. [/quote:1x1o0or2] In the case of the ganzfeld, though, even Ray Hyman admits that the results are unlikely to be the result of chance or error. He claims it's due to some design flaw, such as an inadequate randomization of the targets. This claim has been argued against adequately, IMO. [url:1x1o0or2]http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html[/url:1x1o0or2] Scroll to the bottom of this page for more articles (pro and con) on the ganzfeld. [url:1x1o0or2]http://www.parapsych.org/full_papers.html[/url:1x1o0or2] [quote:1x1o0or2]I too believe there simply HAS to be intentionality, I'm just not sure there's any convincing way to silence the meaning skeptic.[/quote:1x1o0or2] The argument for intentionality is similar to the argument against solipsism. While we cannot completely justify these positions, people will live their lives as if they have intention and as if other minds exist; regardless whether or not philosophers and scientists choose to recognize these characteristics. These notions are hard core common sense - a theory that does not take these into account lacks explanatory value and is inadequate, IMO. [quote:1x1o0or2]But this actually wasn't the thrust of my question. I actually have a hard time understanding how idealism can make sense of intentionality. What are our experiences ABOUT? Other 'meta-experiences'? Or nothing at all?[/quote:1x1o0or2] As to what our experiences are [i:1x1o0or2]on[/i:1x1o0or2], well, physically . . . nothing. Imagine you are in an extremely vivid dream where you are in a room with a table with an apple on it. When you look at the table, what is the experience of the table "about"? What is it on? The space of the room, the feel of wood floor boards on bare feet, the taste of the apple . . . all of these are mental constructs. These experiences, in the dream, supervene entirely upon your mind (*). The objects in your dream can be said to be mental objects. While people don't usually think about it, even in waking life all qualia, sense of space, even the sense of the passage of time, are mental constructs as well. The only discernable differences between dreams and reality can be measured in degrees of intensity, coherence, and consistency. People assume that a physical world underlies their everyday experience and that all experiences supervene upon this world. People believe this, even though they can never directly observe this physical world, primary because of an argument from orderliness. If I were to leave the room I am in now, take a walk around the block, and come back, my computer would (hopefully) still be sitting on my desk. If I were in a dream, this would not necessarily be so. People maintain the existence of a physical world to explain the consistency of their everyday experiences. However, to use this consistency to conclude that there must be an ontologically distinct, ultimately unknowable physical world in which all of our experiences subsist on is a [i:1x1o0or2]non-sequitor[/i:1x1o0or2]. As a working model, it unnecessarily splits the world in two and begs the question: [i:1x1o0or2]How can this unknowable, ontologically different, and insentient world produce qualia?[/i:1x1o0or2]. We [i:1x1o0or2]know[/i:1x1o0or2] qualia exists, but this physical world can only forever be an unobservable abstraction. And anyone who is familiar with the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment would realize that what we experience doesn't necessarily entail [i:1x1o0or2]anything[/i:1x1o0or2] about the nature of what the experiences subsist on. While it is unreasonable to assume we are brains hooked up to electrodes, there is no real reason to assume our experiences are based upon an ontologically distinct physical world either. Idealism has an advantage on realism in that idealism allows for consciousness to exist as we know it without any of the mind/body problems that materialism faces. As to what our experiences are "about", well, just as an object in a dream is an mental object (with, admittingly, "unreal" and inconsistent characteristics) that has no physical substance behind it, an object in waking life can be described as a "metamental object", or an object generated and maintained within the metamind. To use Berkeley's terminology, we are in "God's mind". A modern analogy would be to say we are in a Matrix-like virtual reality world (that is not supervening on a computer). [quote:1x1o0or2]For instance, I believe I have a perspective IN the world ON the world. I'm not sure where to fit your metamind. Are you saying our perspectives are perspectives ON some kind of perspective? I'm not sure it’s possible to salvage an intelligible concept of perspective from this. A perspective, to be a perspective on something, must be one of many possible perspectives on something that transcends it - doesn't it?[/quote:1x1o0or2] Well, back to the dream analogy: When we dream, the objects in our dreams are not necessarily on any real objects - the dreamworld is "internal", so to speak. Conceivably, with much dedication and patience, a lucid dreamer could create a dreamworld with at least a somewhat coherent consistency. This self-created, consistent world would contain objects, an extension in space, and (possibly) a flow of time that would be "about" nothing other than the dreamers own mind. The universe (metaverse?) is the "dreamworld" of the metamind. Objects, extension in space, passage of time . . . it's a consistent dream. Our perceptions are [i:1x1o0or2]within[/i:1x1o0or2] the metamind. One possible argument against mental monism is that when we dream, all of the objects that we dream about originate from our perceptions in waking life. Even unreal objects, such as monsters or unicorns or other impossibilities, are constructed from objects perceived in the real world. If this is true, then where does the metamind get all of its ideas? One answer would be to postulate the existence of platonic "archetypes" or Whiteheadian "eternal objects" (the color red, the sound of a dull hum, the taste of sweetness, etc.). All metamental objects are combinations of these eternal objects or archetypes. I suppose the "rock bottom" foundation of reality could be said to be the eternal objects themselves. [quote:1x1o0or2]But if you acknowledge that our perspectives are on something that transcends them, my question would be: Then why not simply say 'world' like the rest of us? Are you willing to trust philosophical discourse (with its lack of regress enders) so far as to give such an extraordinary ontological content to what we experience?[/quote:1x1o0or2] I would, if the physical world (or at least the variant put forward by mainstream materialists) could allow for the "hard core" common sense notions of consciousness and volition. Science has made remarkable progress in many fields over the last four hundred years, but consciousness is as mysterious now as it was in the time of Descartes. Sure, we've discovered many of the correlates of mind in the form of brain states, but these contain no explanatory value as to [i:1x1o0or2]how[/i:1x1o0or2] or [i:1x1o0or2]why[/i:1x1o0or2] qualia should be connected to neural structures. I like how Lloyd put it when he wrote: [quote:1x1o0or2]They [mental states] are inherently incapable of being predicted within physics, as the terms that denote mental experiences simply do not occur in physics and are not derivable from physical terms - [i:1x1o0or2]Consciousness and Berkely's metaphysics[/i:1x1o0or2][/quote:1x1o0or2] Consciousness (and, possibly, psi) is a huge right in the center of modern science's worldview. And I don't think we're going to find the answer by discovering more neural correlates. Or by trying to eliminate it away either. Whether or not mental monism is true or not (panexperientalism is appealing as well), I have no idea. But I feel confident in stating that consciousness (or at least experience, or awareness) must be a foundation of reality, much the way gravity is - a law of nature, irreducible and undeniable. I must say I am enjoying this discussion immensely. It's been a while since I've talked with someone interested in this subject. *-Some would say they supervene on neural correlates, but there is nothing about the structure of the brain that would explain the qualia. Not to mention that the objective existence of neural activity is inferred entirely from our conscious experiences. A mental monist would say that the perceptions of brain activity (and the experiences of mental correlatives between the two) are metamental objects maintained in the metamind view post


posted 29 Jun 2004, 15:06 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

I'm enjoying this as well! Just a few more questions: You say its the recalcitrance of intentionality thats the chicken bone in the throat of materialism - you'll get no argument from me there (though I more interested in talking naturalism than materialism)! But I have to admit, I no longer have any clue just what you mean by intentionality. You acknowledge that aboutness is a decisive characteristic of experience, and yet you seem to alternately suggest that our experiences are 1) about nothing at all, and 2) about 'mental constructs.' If (1) is the case, then you're arguing that intentionality (understood as aboutness) is in fact illusory. In other words, you seem to kill intentionality in the name of saving it. (2) just strikes me as incoherent. 'Mental constructs' are presumeably things constructed by my mind, and as such exist only within my mind. So precisely WHERE is my mind? It can't be in my head, because 'head' is just a mental construct existing in my mind. It can't be in your head for the same reason - in fact, if I take what you're saying right, you're nothing more than a mental construct in my nowhere-dwelling mind. You make an appeal to common sense in rejecting materialism - once again I'm sympathetic - but I'm not sure where the rubber of your appeal hits the road. I have to admit my cynicism here, and I should explain so that you can see the much different tack I take to this debate. Any position can be rationalized given enough time and ingenuity: there really are no regress enders for philosophical discourse (and I take the fact that we can argue this point infinitely without arriving at a compelling conclusion to be a demonstration of this). Add the intrinsic need humans seem to have for things like meaning, morality, and purpose, and all these arguments start sounding more like apologia than anything else. The only theoretical truth-claims that really impress me anymore are 1) scientific, 2) those that cut against the grain of our conceits, 3) those that are intuitively forceful prior to philosophical training (like determinism, for instance). None of this means that philosophy doesn't have interesting and worthwhile things to say - what it means is that philosophy lacks the institutional, conceptual, and methodological resources to offer anything resembling a compelling, regress-ending, answer. This just seem obvious to me. And this, by the way, is why I see modernity as a time of profound crisis: in our society only scientific institutions have the ability to make truth-claims stick - so successfully that they've utterly transformed the world - and yet they seem fundamentally antagonistic to meaning and value, to the way we humans understand ourselves in the first instance. When the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of the human race insinuates the meaningless of existence - well, that strikes me as cause for concern. So when I approach arguments at the metaphysical level of monisms, dualisms, and whatnot, there's a sense in which I'm muckraking more than anything else. I can see the interest of such debates, but I can't understand the [i:kdkn8dfb]commitment[/i:kdkn8dfb]. Such commitment, it seems to me, stems from an unwarranted optimism in the capacity of philosophical argument. view post


Death penalty posted 01 Jul 2004, 00:07 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Anonymous, Subdidact

You make excellent points. As for myself, I don't believe in the death penalty for a few reasons: 1. Mistakes in convictions are often made and the death penalty can't be undone. (Obvious, but very important). 2. It is assumed that extreme punishments act as deterrents, but they only do if the person committing a crime considers whether they will get caught. Many people committing crimes never consider the possibility of getting caught, so the deterrent effect is useless in their cases. 3. Justice shouldn't be the same as punishment or revenge (moral grounds). I don't think it is a waste of tax-payers dollars to have a truly just justive system. That is one of the things civilisation is all about. view post


posted 05 Aug 2004, 00:08 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Hi folks, I have been lurking here for awhile and decided to give my two cents on this topic. With most organized religions there have been people who have interpreted the word of their "God" or have said that there "God" says this and believes that. I beleive that this is the downfall of these religions and with religion itself. To me this act of relaying "God's" word or intent through man is not a reasonable way to set one's beliefs. It was an easy way to scare the living crap out of the illiterate population during the dark ages, but for reasonably intelligent human beings to rely on another "man" for their spiritual guidance is totally irresponsible of the entire race. Spirituality has never come from another, it has only come from within. This false sense of "faith' has led not toward enlightenment, which one would hope for, but towards self induced ignorance and the regression of the human mind. I will not pretend to speak for others, but life to me is [i:1weyligm]learning[/i:1weyligm]. And to adhere to an article of "faith" to the exclusion of any other seems to me to be the opposite of learning. How can one learn when one will not accept that they could be wrong? The dismissal of just some possibilties is the dismissal of [i:1weyligm]all[/i:1weyligm] possibilities. The teachings of organized religions may be noble, but in this day and age I think we have all seen just how much total faith has been turned into hatred and is now a game of who is right. Jihad, crusade, it is all ignorance in silver wraping. Back to the original question, I believe that a "God" does exist. I do not however, pick his/her/its brains in the evening. view post


posted 05 Aug 2004, 21:08 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

what is trade and HB mean?? view post


posted 05 Aug 2004, 21:08 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

can anyone tell me why WP is already out in Canada but not in the US until next year? view post


posted 14 Aug 2004, 20:08 in Literature DiscussionDan Brown by Anonymous, Subdidact

Just a suggestion. Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Non-Fiction. Deals with subjects of The Da Vinci Code. Listen to Grave. view post


posted 21 Aug 2004, 03:08 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Orion_metalhead":3rdwjh0f]Lugubrum Taake Drudkh Entombed Iced Earth Deathchain good shit for the metalheads out there.[/quote:3rdwjh0f] You, sir, have good taste in music. view post


posted 22 Aug 2004, 16:08 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Orion_metalhead":1z8tdhwx]thank you unknown guest. NP: Morgoth Winds Viking Crown Gorgoroth[/quote:1z8tdhwx] No to VIking Crown :P The rest is top notch. :twisted: view post


posted 11 Sep 2004, 14:09 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":2qx33e22] Our purpose isn't to be fruitful and multiply. We have no purpose whatsoever, even as we're condemned to look at the world in purposive terms. This is what [i:2qx33e22]science[/i:2qx33e22] - the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of humankind - implies. [/quote:2qx33e22] I agree with most of what you said, but not this supposed implication. Atleast if "what is the purpose of mankind" is to be (roughly) the same question as "what is the meaning of life". Science does not answer these questions at all since they are meaningless withing that system. It's like asking what the density of impressionism is. It seems to me that asking for a purpose, in science, has no answear since it really cannot be asked. view post


posted 13 Sep 2004, 21:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Anonymous, Subdidact

I am reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I got a rare advance copy, it is awesome. view post


posted 20 Sep 2004, 00:09 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Anonymous, Subdidact

Opinion: If an omniscient, omnipotent entity exists then no other (lesser) entity can have free will. It can revoke your choices at its discretion, perhaps even retroactively. Further Opinion: The existence or nonexistence of free will (and my possession or nonpossession of it) would likely make no (little?) difference to the living of my life. Either I cannot choose to change it, or I already try to make the best choices I can and can do no better with that knowledge. view post


Wheel of Time Sucks(?) posted 20 Sep 2004, 22:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionBad, bad book. BAAAD. by Anonymous, Subdidact

Question. I read the first few books in the WoT, the first FIVE actually, and I heard they get considerably worse from there, so I dropped it. Whats everyones biggest problems with the series, from start to finish and with the most recent ones, which seem to get nothing but negative reviews(so I will not be taking the time, seen as how I am already terribly under-read in more important areas right now)? view post


posted 29 Sep 2004, 00:09 in Book ClubA Game of Thrones book club discussion open by Anonymous, Subdidact

I have to say I loved A Game of Thrones. Martin can write very detailed and believable characters. He is also not afraid to stray from genre "traditions," and in the process does a gust of fresh air into the fantasy genre and literature in general. This is no Lord of the Rings clone like so many other fantasy books out there, and no ultimate evil. Instead the "evil" characters are only "evil" because they simply look out for number one. I think the the "sexual episodes" of the books give a huge amount of detail about the chracters and because of this were kinda of necessary. I am thinking of Dany and Drogo and Tyrion and Shae. Without the episodes of Dany and Drogo we would not see the how the character of Dany changes from a very passive person to the strong willed person she becomes. Also the Tyrion and Shae shows Tyrion's ultimate weekness. view post


Related Question posted 30 Sep 2004, 05:09 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Anonymous, Subdidact

If we accept the implication of science (sounds like we are talking about a person :lol: ) about are lack of free will, would that still apply to, for example, a disembodied consciousness? It seems to me that whatever form the mind takes the decisions it makes depend upon the inputs (stimuli?) that prompt the decision. That the result depends on the input and, therefore, the mind does not have free will because what it does is predetermined by external factors. And if it it does not base its decisions on this basis and instead chooses randomly, is it really making decisions at all. That was messy. I think my argument could be summarised thus: A process of evaluation is inherently deterministic. view post


posted 01 Oct 2004, 03:10 in Philosophy DiscussionScience disenchanting the world. by Anonymous, Subdidact

Inclined to say no. Scott has posted several times with the example of his students tending to discount science, which seems to be a general attitude with the world today. Personal example: with the probably exception of my father, most of my family seems to espouse some form of mysticism. People who have no interest in science seem unlikely to become disenchanted by it. Then again there are many people who have little to no education wert science yet seem very impressed by whatever is going on or has been learned so far. And others, with education in the field, often find the explanations themselves wondrous or awe-inspiring (actually, this and the previous paragraph could be folded together. I won't do it, though). Is a planetary nebula more impressive as a smear of colour in a telescope (photograph more likely), or with the knowledge that that was once a star, that what you see is hundreds of billions of kilometres across, that it is lit by an object no larger than the earth, and that you can see it from so far away? In my experience, knowing how a rainbow is formed does not make it less aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes it causes me to engage more fully with the phenomena. :P On the other hand, from the Oxfrd English Dictionary: disenchanted, ppl. a. Freed from enchantment or illusion. I would still say no, citing my first paragraph. And suggest that that might be a shame. view post


posted 02 Oct 2004, 18:10 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Anonymous, Subdidact

tellner, your phrasing is much clearer than mine (as in the 'science disenchanting the world' thread, I think you said what I was trying to, better). [quote:1c6gef4l]The Talmud says "G-d has foreknowledge, but man has free will". The Diety's perception of time is not as limited as our own. What we see as sequential events is perceived as a timeless whole from the perspective of eternity. Our choices determine the shape. He sees the entire thing.[/quote:1c6gef4l] That is an interesting idea. But it does not seem to account for a deity that is also omnipotent. My statement is concerned only with entities that possess both qualities. Could I have a context for the Talmud? I suspect it is a holy book, but the name does not get thrown around in my prescence as often as 'bible' or 'koran.' [quote:1c6gef4l]Elsewhere it is said that even if we don not ultimately have free will it is wise to act as if our actions have consequences.[/quote:1c6gef4l] Yes, I am rather fond of that idea myself. Wert your second post, first paragraph, again you type with greater clarity than I do. My question is: taking that as true, consider a consciousness without the 'machinary' that constitutes us. Is consciousness on its own a deterministic process or does that arise from the machinary that produces it? For Buddhism giving an answer to my question, I will need to think about. More likely, read some texts before I can respond to it. It has been a while and I do not want to misrepresent it. [quote:1c6gef4l]Get over it. Don't worry about it.[/quote:1c6gef4l] I don't. view post


posted 25 Oct 2004, 04:10 in Philosophy DiscussionScience disenchanting the world. by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Grantaire":3o6rqelt][quote:3o6rqelt]Which is simpler: Newtonian physics or quantum physics? The point of Occam's Razor is that, given two theories with equal explanatory power, one should choose the theory with the least amount of entities. Basically, one should get rid of all unnecessary entities. Quantum physics is more complex than Newtonian physics, but quantum physics also has greater explanatory power. Materialism, given its ontological limitations (it's basically a decapitated dualism), is incapable of explaining consciousness without appealing to an invisible homunculus, which is simply not allowed under materialism. Whiteheadian Panexperientalism (true or not) has more explanatory power than any materialist theory of consciousness; primarily because Whiteheadianism actually allows a place for the subjective. In materialism, the theories may bring to light correlations of consciousness and brain states, but these brain states, as defined by the tenets of materialism (blind, objective processes) - the consciousness is just something that "happens." The qualia, the "binding" problem, and "aboutness" of intention are reduced to a functionally unnecessary and unexplained epiphenomena. In all materialistic theories of consciousness, the explanations do not logically entail a "what is it likeness" to the system. Any attribution of intention to the system remains observer-relative, something "tacked on" from the outside. Because of this, I consider materialism to be dualism in denial. My theory may be complex, and at prima facie appear improbable; but, surely one can't mean "This theory is improbable, as opposed to materialism."[/quote:3o6rqelt] Just a quick comment about your comparison between Newtonian physics and quantum physics. Really, they have equal explanatory power, because they are only two parts of the complete physical description of the universe. Quantum gravity will be the unifying factor, once it is discovered (though some think string theory can reconcile them as well).[/quote:3o6rqelt] Did you perhaps mean General Relativity, rather than Newtonian physics? Relativity has much greater explanatory power than Newtonian physics and that is the other theory physicists are hoping to coax quantum gravity out of. As an aside, General Relativity may be an even bleaker prospect for the proponents of free will/choice/etc. - time being a dimension, the solutions to its equations produce a completed picture, uh, what am I trying to say? The solution is complete, a whole both spatially and temporally and strongly suggests that the passage of time is another of those wossnames, an illusion. That not only is there no choice about what happens, but that 'happenings' in sequence do not, in fact, happen. Take that aside with a grain of salt. I have never studied general relativity formally, never seen the equations myself and doubt I (yet, hopefully) have the mathematical training to solve them. I doubt they have their fiendish reputation for nothing. [quote="Grantaire":3o6rqelt][quote:3o6rqelt]I've studied quantum physics, and it has given me almost as big a headache as consciousness has. I mean, the Aspect experiments suggest a holistic interpretation of the universe, which is difficult to imagine (though it makes sense, in a way). And Wheeler's delayed choice experiment has left me just plain confused. I realize I commonly use the term "billiard balls" when referring to materialism, and I hope I haven't led anyone to believe that my current vision of matter is stuck in the 19th century; I use this term to refer to all the vacuous entities of materialism , which includes the "non-billiard ball-like" substances found in the sub-atomic world. In any event, by "billiard ball," I mean that the substance has no "what-is-it-like" about it; it only has an "outside." In materialism, the sub-atomic entities supposedly lack experience as much as their more traditionally "solid" counter-parts. In any case, even though they are outside the domain of science, the metaphysics are important. We may have the collected observations and accurate theories of observed and repeatable phenomena, but the "what-is-it?" of the observed phenomena is certainly not irrelevant when discussing the ontology of the world. Is the observed phenomena intrinsically mental? Or does the phenomena originate from vacuous entities out in a spatial-temporal void? Science can't answer these questions, no matter how many experiments and observations are made. However, the questions, though ultimately speculation, are vital when confronting the world-knot of consciousness. Despite Scott's assertion that "the picture is slowly coming into functional focus," science is no closer to explaining consciousness than it was in Descartes' time. We have mental-physical correlations, but this is hardly an explanation. Scott is right when he says science is the "only game in town" when it comes to accurate predictions of the world (recording and predicting observed phenomena), but the metaphysical concerns (the "who's casting the shadows?" questions) are simply beyond science. [More on this later][/quote:3o6rqelt] Don't worry, I knew what you were saying with the billiard balls :wink: I think you've hit on exactly why I'm saying it's irrelevent. Simply by the fact that you wish to discuss consciousness in terms of metaphysics (philosophy), makes all conclusions automatically void. The nature of philosophical discourse, as well as language, make it so that not only will readers not get the [i:3o6rqelt]exact[/i:3o6rqelt] intent of your communication, but also, human perception "taints" what we perceive, simply through the nature of our minds. You spoke earlier of mistaking the map for the territory in the case of subatomic particles, but I think the exact same error could be made here- a linguistic description of fundamental metaphysics should not be mistaken for what it actually represents. Also, what each of us "experiences" in the universe is a totally subjective experience- and how can that translate into a true fundamental solution of metaphysics, applicable to all "conscious experiencers"? (for lack of a better term) Sorry if these thoughts are coming out jumbled, I'm hardly a philosophy major :wink: Another thing I'd like to hit on is the old "what if we're just the dream of a butterfly?" idea. I think this too is an interesting idea, because what if our entire universe, our existances, our experiences and memories, our emotions and thoughts, the births and deaths of galaxies- what if all of it is simply a passing aspect of some...larger entity/thing (there is no word I can think of that is fitting)? We could live in this universe, with its physical laws, and perhaps some fundamental metaphysical law, or basis of matter/consciousness, but what would it matter then, if really they aren't what the "true" reality is?[/quote:3o6rqelt] Given that you (if I recall correctly) seem to espouse or at least lean towards a nihilistic view, do you think this would be any more or less 'something that matters' than said nihilistic universe? [quote="Grantaire":3o6rqelt][quote:3o6rqelt]Now that I have thought about it, I agree with you on this; I have met few people who are even aware that there is a mind-body problem. However, I still think that this will definitely have a negative effect on the field of psychiatry and the treatment of mental disorders. As doctors treat mental patients less like autonomous individuals and more like machines, this may have a trickle down effect on the masses. We're already at the point where the diagnosis are usually: "Your fixation on your mother is due to a malfunctioning brain, you need more drugs." or "You son's disobedient behavior is due to a defective brain, he will require two of these pills each day for behavioral correction."[/quote:3o6rqelt] And I have met very few people who are even aware of the many problems that philosophy can bring up, and even fewer who would care.[/quote:3o6rqelt] Another question: What is your opinion on that? view post


Why so long for the US release? posted 05 Nov 2004, 06:11 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

Back to the question asked earlier please. Why is the US release date so far away? The book will have been out in Canada for over a year before it reaches book stores in the US. Now that just doesn't seem right to me. I picked up the first book on 11/02/04 and finished it today. I bought the book knowing nothing about it, and enjoyed it immensely. And now I am told that I have to wait eight months until the sequel hits the US market! Something just does seem right. Am I missing something? view post


posted 17 Nov 2004, 21:11 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Anonymous, Subdidact

If you can, get the Canadian covers. The US covers are lame. The Canadian ones are excellent. view post


Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn posted 27 Nov 2004, 01:11 in Literature DiscussionMemory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Anonymous, Subdidact

So I'm on the message board of Greg Keyes for a minute, checking it out... And people are calling Tad Williams a genius!?!? Can anyone confirm or deny? I read the first 30 pages and thought it was cliche, uncreative writing with a basic setting and redundant characters. Are these books worth my time or is it Lord of the Rings part 12 penned by Joe Hack? view post


posted 27 Nov 2004, 17:11 in Literature DiscussionMemory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Anonymous, Subdidact

Appreciate it. I thought the first 50 sucked, but if more thnk its worthy I'll give it a second rip. Anyone else? view post


posted 27 Nov 2004, 19:11 in Literature DiscussionMemory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Anonymous, Subdidact

That was the real friggin shocker; that this inspired GRRM. I'll reserve the term "literary genius" for myself, Scott and Tokin'. view post


posted 04 Dec 2004, 22:12 in Literature DiscussionMemory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Anonymous, Subdidact

Sorry, is Tolkien's literary genius being debated here? Cause if it is... Tokin is a great nick name for the guy who made pipe weed a fantasy gig. Well, maybe not perfect but... Length isn't the issue with Memory, Sorrow and Thorn...It just starts off with the sense of the downtrodden boy becoming king thing all over again. view post


posted 14 Dec 2004, 21:12 in Philosophy Discussionwho should determine what is "right"? by Anonymous, Subdidact

What is right? By asking the question and pondering, the answer is created. The questioner decides what is right, and decides who should decide. Of course, knowing what should happen in any given fantasy about right and wrong is different than affecting the outcome of the fantasy. view post


Some was good... posted 18 Dec 2004, 01:12 in Literature DiscussionMemory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Anonymous, Subdidact

I read the entire series, and while i did finish it, i wasn't overly impressed. It defintely had it's moments, and while i'm not recommending it to anyone, i'm also not gonna stop them from reading it. Personally i think the best parts were the analagies that Williams uses to portray insane men, depsperate woman, etc.... besdies that, it was similar to a lot of other works where helpless, useless boy becomes king of everything. view post


posted 19 Dec 2004, 14:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionBeyond The Prince of Nothing? by Anonymous, Subdidact

From an interview with Bakker on SFSite: What are you working on now? How many books will ultimately be set in the world of The Prince of Nothing? The Prince of Nothing consists of three books, The Darkness that Comes Before, The Warrior-Prophet, and The Thousandfold Thought. They tell the story of the crucial events that occur some twenty years before the Second Apocalypse begins. I have outlines (whose original forms, coincidentally, date back some twenty years) that sketch the story of the Second Apocalypse, starting with The Aspect-Emperor and ending with The-Book-that-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Whether these will turn into trilogies like The Prince of Nothing remains to be seen. My guess is that each will be a dualogy view post


posted 20 Dec 2004, 06:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Anonymous, Subdidact

mine view post


on and on posted 20 Dec 2004, 06:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Lots of drone, dreamy stuff: Jessamine Godspeed You Black Emperor! &etc Tarentel Kinsky Japancakes and so on... And Tool Hank Williams Sr. (not jr.) Haydn Beethoven (well "Fur Elise" over and over again, that counts) Hendrix Aphex Twin E.A.R. Andre Segovia SRV on and on view post


posted 27 Dec 2004, 18:12 in Literature DiscussionWhat would you say are the must-reads of literature? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Aldarion: Yeah, you put Civilization and Its Discontents on top of your list! Read it, folks, it'll change the way you think and is much more entertaining than reading about penises and yellow wallpaper. Future of An Illusion is a classic as well. Here are a few of my abolsute must-reads (this is so subjective and because of who I am, very Western-centric). The first list I chose for purposes of what, in my humble opinion, you must read to understand the times/context in which most of we Westerners live. The second list is strictly fiction. Non-Fiction (No order) 1. The Bible - Any version (maybe this should be on the fiction list?) 2. The Prince (and then the Discourses) - Machiavelli 3. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Weber 4. Understanding Media - Marshall McLuhan 5. Feminism Unmodified - Mackinnon 6. The Origin of Species - Darwin 7. The Republic - Plato 8. Interpretation of Dreams - Freud Fiction 1. The Fountainhead - Rand 2. Grapes of Wrath - Steinbeck 3. Lolita - Nabokov (I have the first 2 paragraphs memorized) 4. Everything by Shakespeare (but the comedies are my favorites). Was there a greater Western literary genius? Okay, John Donne was arguably a better poet but Shakespeare was unreal and so prolific. I mean, how many words did the fellow coin? 5. Portnoy's Complaint - Roth 6. The Great Gatsby - Fitzgerald view post


posted 09 Feb 2005, 03:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Anonymous, Subdidact

cunning view post


posted 09 Feb 2005, 03:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Anonymous, Subdidact

dual booting slackware 10 and winxp Always had a thing for linux but could never really summon the attention from other projects necessary to really learn to use it. So I ended up sticking it in a smaller partition and use it to recover files from major windows crashes... it's not so much an OS as a system utility for me. Was using opera, then switched to firefox. I like opera better because it has everything firefox has... plus mouse gestures. view post


2. posted 09 Feb 2005, 03:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionTop 10 (or so) Ways You Kow You're an R. Scott Bakker Fan by Anonymous, Subdidact

2. You start analyzing your co workers and/or family, "Ah, Bob in Resources has been hiding from himself in a life of self loathing since Betty in Data Storage dumped him. All I have to do is pretend to be his father and he'll be fetching me cofee for a month!" view post


posted 11 Feb 2005, 07:02 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat introduced you to philosophy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Started in my early teens wondering if other people might see colors differently than me and everyone just agreed on terms. At some point reading Nietzsche was the "in" thing, other germans to a greater extent relative to their public obscurity. Someone threw buddhism my way and that counts... or will, when we add it up. A dash of the Upanishads... some zen and a sprinkling of pulp sci-future rhetoric... "Illuminatii" and all that. Then the damn frenchmen... Baudrillard and Virillio, Foucault, Lyotard... the whole semiotexte crew. Bah. The field of philosphy? I don't know. Nevermind. Starting over with Aristotle. Be back someday. view post


Check out My Band ASCENDANT posted 24 Feb 2005, 02:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionCheck out My Band ASCENDANT by Anonymous, Subdidact

Check out my band. we have three songs uploaded. they are from our demo and have no drums ( havent recorded them yet ) but check them out and tell us what you think. [url:2tb128ab]http://www.myspace.com/ascendant[/url:2tb128ab] AJDEATH - what do you think, i know you live the life of the metalhead. what are your comments? view post


The Characters posted 26 Feb 2005, 15:02 in Literature Discussionsarah ash by Anonymous, Subdidact

Does anyone else despise Kiukiu? Am I the only one who much prefers the Gavril/Astasia romance to the Kiukiu/Gavril romance? I want to throw bloody Kiukiu out of the story... Oh well. view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 15:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Grantaire":2hkfbpzg]And/or what are your religious beliefs? Why?[/quote:2hkfbpzg] "God" or "god"...? Not sure. I don't believe in the supreme being held up by Christianity, though, but I don't believe in the interpretation of "God" held up by ANY religion, either. Still, I can't say that my own personal beliefs preclude the existence of a supreme being of some sort because they do. I just don't think that we can know the purpose of such a being and that it is pretty stupid to think that we can assign human values and traits to such an entity. I believe that there is something greater than us and that we are part of some purpose but I don't think that anyone can know exactly what that purpose is or can fully comprehend a being that is so much more than us. I don't think that the existence OR absence of a God or god or gods can be proven with logic, no matter how many people have attempted to do so. It is a matter of BELIEF more than anything else. view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 15:02 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Wil, I must say that your contention (however you deny it) that Dems are more educated than Republicans is false. The fact is that, on average, Republicans are more educated than Democrats. Every study that I've seen shows this. Republican income is higher than Democrat income and this correlates directly to educational level. Implying that Bush got reelected by a bunch of uneducated southerners and Midwesterners just doesn't hold water. I am very glad that Bush got re-elected but I'm also surprised. My only explanation is that Kerry just wasn't the guy for the job. It is difficult to represent him as a "man of the people" when he is from a wealthy family and has married heiresses twice and lived off of their money rather than going out and making his own way in the world. It is difficult to sell him as a war hero when the length of his service was so short and he spoke out against the US military and the US government so vehemently immediately after his tour of duty AND when the circumstances of his "heroic" exploits are so vague and questionable. I think that the Dems should have stuck with Dean, in all honesty. My own vote went to Bush though I am, at heart, a libertarian. view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 16:02 in Philosophy DiscussionAyn Rand by Anonymous, Subdidact

I'm not much of a fan of Ayn Rand though I agree with some of the ideas that she advances. Still yet, after reading the posts in this thread, I have to ask a few questions... If individualism is a bad thing, then what is good? Someone implied earlier that less government is a bad thing. Why? view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 16:02 in Philosophy DiscussionAyn Rand by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="tellner":15bt4tkv] She supplies simplistic answers to everything. There is no room for ambiguity, no conflicting demands of, say, duty and affection or profit and ethics. [/quote:15bt4tkv] Gotta ask this... What is bad about simplistic answers? Why SHOULD we provide room for ambiguity? Conflicting demands? I really have no conflicting demands upon MY life because I DO follow a simple formula. Whatever is most important to me is what wins out. It's as simple as that. My choice between duty and affection? Depends on what duty vs. what affection, but there will always be a clear winner. Between profit and ethics? Same thing. I see myself as clear-headed enough to place some sort of value on things and the decisions approached thusly are all simple ones. What is wrong with that outlook? view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Annabel":2lirf3l2]Amadah: As a libertarian, why did you vote for Bush? Did you read the Homeland Security Act? I'm a liberal but some of my best friends were/are libertarians - all in the Federalist Society - and I just gotta say that if you believe in minimal government and as little possible intrusion on people's rights as possible, then the Bush administration must be driving you nuts. Economic, social and environmental regulation and interference (or the lack thereof in my opionion), well, okay maybe the administration is okay as far as that goes - laissez faire to our own destruction. But there is some weaselly stuff going on with basic rights - like due process, privacy, etc. Plus, there's our ever-ballooning deficit and the back door draft. I would think that most libertarians would be hopping mad. Can you explain? I really would like to know what the rationale is. Thanks![/quote:2lirf3l2] I voted for Bush because I have no use for liberal Democrats, socialists and the like and because, to me, the very existence of a Libertarian Party (note the large "L") violates what I consider to be libertarian (note the small "l") values. The Bush administration is doing, for the most part, a fine job, imho. I dislike the short-sightedness of some of the "rights stuff" that you mention because the legislation is pre-supposing (even more than most laws) that the caretakers of the law will be fair in their use of the broader powers that they are granted. So far, that is the case, but it will not remain so. Opening the door WILL lead to abuses but we will see the abuses come more from the left than the right. Laissez-faire to our own destruction? Not likely. "Hands-off" policies are far better for most of the areas mentioned than trying to meddle with them. History has shown that laissez-faire policies are, in the long run, far more beneficial than the alternative. Still, there really needs to be a dynamic tension for our political system to work well. I dislike some of the Bush administration's policies domestically and am more than ready to see them go by the wayside. Although I REALLY hate liberals, I dislike ANY political party telling me (or anyone, but mostly me) what I can and cannot do. For example...an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage? Hogwash! While I'm not FOR gay marriage, it is not for me to say whether they can wed or not. Constitutional amendments need to be reserved for more important things if the Constitution is to be amended at all (for the record, I'm vehemently opposed to amending it). In the end, only Kerry and Bush had any hope of winning the election so I had to vote for the party (and the man) that I'd rather see in office. I'd rather have a right-wing Christian war-mongering freedom-lover in office than a left-wing hippy socialist flower-child with questionable (to me) loyalty to his country and people, but that's just one man's opinion. view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAyn Rand by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:1ne3k9yz]Nobody here said that individualism is a bad thing. [/quote:1ne3k9yz] That is actually the implication...and the rest of your post seems to prove out that you believe that individualism is actually a quality of an ignorant and somehow lesser person. That the enlightened individual (there's that word...and it's YOU by implication since you seem to be preaching) should realize that they are NOT an individual...? [quote:1ne3k9yz]Rather, Rand's total disregard for anything except the individual is a bad thing. It is an extreme position that is just a few steps from madness, and I'm not completely sure in which direction those steps would be.[/quote:1ne3k9yz] Rand DOES go too far. She lacks a critical understanding of the individual and the place of the individual. [quote:1ne3k9yz]It subordinates every concern, every feeling, every value, every human relation and the good of anyone and everyone else to the dictates of the ego and pure self interest. The figleaf of eschewing "coercion", robbery and fraud leaves much of the pathology naked to view. As I alluded to earlier, it is only twentieth century technology and the rise of a certain sort of urban culture with labor specialization which makes this peculiar philosophy viable. It is only because collective structures and social organization allow us to buy our food and rent our homes that we can pretend we are independent.[/quote:1ne3k9yz] It actually seems to me that you, too, are missing the mark. In your denial of "all things Rand", you seem to swing as far away as her. If you want to break things down far enough, NOTHING and NO ONE is independent but neither are they totally DEPENDENT. It's a subjective matter, not an OBJECTIVE one...! [quote:1ne3k9yz]One of the most fascinating and wonderful things about human beings is that we are partly individual, partly social, capable of great independence and interdependence at the same time. Randism, which is as much a religion as the crudest "G-d said it, we believe it, that settles it" form of backwoods Know Nothingism, is nothing more than a denial of half of human nature. It relies on the individual shackling himself to the myth of the heroic Randite hero/prophet and believing with all his heart that he is the same sort of fictional character.[/quote:1ne3k9yz] A person's religion is their own. Should I trust that "tellner said it, I should believe it, that settles it"...? THAT would be a form of backwoods Know Nothingism, would it not? view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAyn Rand by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:2pttujth] Consider the name she gives her new religion, Objectivism. By implication, she is objective and faces facts, Everyone else is subjective and denies them. This is a cheap and extremely transparent rhetorical trick of the sort that any college junior will be able to avoid. But by accepting it the believer implicitly denies that anyone else can possibly have anything factual or true to contribute to human understanding. [/quote:2pttujth] Untrue. It isn't about "human understanding" at all...it's about the understanding of a particular individual. It might be easiest to say that objectivism is actually subjective in that it relates only to an individual's reality. Rand is guilty of not realizing this, too, I think. There can be nothing truly objective because one cannot possibly take all facts into account. [quote:2pttujth]Your own views, stated here, betray this. There can be no conflicting desires. There can be no time when two important things are at odds with one another. There is only one value, one truth, one possible answer to any question. I put it to you that the real world doesn't always work that way. There are times when a contract, freely entered into, is at odds with, say, a personal sense of honesty or honor. If you have a spouse, children or even pets there are times when your duty to them is at odds with what is good for you personally. But because you value the relationship or out of a sense of obligation entered into by marriage, parenthood, or having taken responsibility for a dumb animal which can not understand your sophistry love, duty, or loyalty require you to act in ways which aren't to your advantage.[/quote:2pttujth] The real world works that way when you think in the manner that I described. There is always something marginally "better" than the alternative so you make that "better" choice. It may be something that you agonize over later when you realize that you didn't take everything into consideration but, if you take the most important facts that are known at the time of the choice into consideration and leave it at that, then it is VERY simple. [quote:2pttujth]The conflict is very real. [/quote:2pttujth] Not really. [quote:2pttujth]You will, no doubt, bring up the whole idea of sacrifice at this point and contrast that weak, evil concept with the Randite idea of moral gain. It doesn't wash.[/quote:2pttujth] And why would I "bring up the whole idea of sacrifice at this point"...? [quote:2pttujth]There are times when ethics really does lead you to a place where you are damaged by doing the ethical or moral thing. When a soldier walks point, a police officer makes a dangerous arrest or a mother gives birth each of them is risking a terrible and painful personal death on behalf of something or someone else. There is no possible sin worse for a Randite. But the power of the oath or the very primal, fundamental demands of parenthood make the action follow inescapably. I'd go further. Shrinking from the unpleasant consequences of the act makes a person less than human.[/quote:2pttujth] You're definitely wandering away from anything that I've said or to which I've alluded. [quote:2pttujth]Sacrifice doesn't mean to give up something needlessly. It means to make sacred. Someone who has been there will understand. Someone to whom personal profit is the only good can not understand, and I do not know how to bridge that gap from the outside. All I can say is that if the time comes when I have to choose between saving my life and that of my wife or child I pray that I will be able to choose the latter joyfully, bravely and without hesitation. To do otherwise is to fail the final test of being a man.[/quote:2pttujth] I'm attempting to be nice about this debate, but you seem to be REALLY talking down to me. Why would I think that sacrifice means giving up something needlessly? BTW...personal profit in the situation that you state DOES exist. You would be "joyfully, bravely and without hesitation" giving your life to save the wife or child and thusly pass "the final test of being a man". I'll end with this thought...EVERYTHING that one does is self-fulfilling in one way or another. We do NOTHING that is NOT selfish in nature. view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

But applicable. view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 17:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":3lyub80p] Actually it does, I have seen video of a guy doing interviews in the red states, some people had a clue, but a lot of people voted for Bush because of family name and had no clue what Kerry's name even was. One voter thought that bush wanted universal health care. Like I said, not everyone of these people was a moron.[/quote:3lyub80p] It does...?! So the smart people, the coastal ones by your implication, got outvoted by the stupid masses of southerners and midwesterners? Not likely. I've seen plenty of interviews with people in the "blue states" who had no clue. Seeing interviews with a small sampling of the populace isn't much of an indicator of anything at all. My own personal experience with employees of mine who voted for Kerry is that they voted Democrat only because Democrats are supposedly "for the little man" or some crap like that. Few voters can give what I would consider a good reason for their vote. It's mostly some vague notion or "just because". Overall, though, having lived in southern and Midwestern states almost exclusively, I really have to laugh at the proposition that people in the "red states" are less intelligent than people in the "blue states". Do you actually believe that? [quote:3lyub80p] Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.[/quote:3lyub80p] I know quite a bit about the Bush family, as a matter of fact. Much more so than MANY people. Has W been helped? Sure he has. But he's still got a lot more in common with the "common man" than does Kerry. view post


posted 01 Mar 2005, 23:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="H":17uocyi1] Provided this is true (which i'm in no way convinced it is), how does that make him fit to run the country? I'm sure he's got alot in common with me, 10 finders and toes, 2 eyes and so on. However, i don't want to know what he's got in common with me, i want to know what he's going to [i:17uocyi1]do[/i:17uocyi1] for me. What he has in common with everyone doesn't change his policy nor his attitude toward the rest of the world, the two issues i have trouble accepting as 'just'.[/quote:17uocyi1] It doesn't. I'm just arguing that Bush has more of an idea of what the average US citizen needs and thinks than does/did John Kerry. Your idea, though, about wanting to know what he could do for YOU is a good one and one that should be explored. Perhaps reading about capitalism and the free market in general as opposed to socialism would tell you what he could do for you vs. what Kerry could/would do? As for Bush's attitude toward the rest of the world? I hear that brought up all the time but the man simply won't bend knee to a bunch of other countries. Why should he? Why should WE???? [quote:17uocyi1]Besides being disturbed by his Born Again attitude, i also don't support his agenda. Somehow knowing that someone is in office looking to, first, provide breaks for big bussiness (i.e. not me) and, secondly, to subvert the constitution by bringing religion into the government. I can't see how either of these things will bring this country closer to freedom and democracy, ideals which seem to be so all important to Mr. Bush.[/quote:17uocyi1] I don't care for any sort of overly religious attitude, either, but that goes for a Buddhist president, an Islamic president, a Catholic president...ANY religion. I DO, however, like a moral framework included. I don't think that the Ten Commandments are a big deal, though representing them AS the Ten Commandments might offend followers of other religions. Breaks to big business ARE breaks to you. Again, read about capitalism and trace out where the money goes. It doesn't just sit in the pocket of some company. Money gets spent, in gets INVESTED...it GROWS and it's up to YOU to make it grow for YOU. The government only sets the stage. view post


posted 02 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":3df50ua7] No, I don't actually believe that. there are stupid people everywhere, but more religious nuts are found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states. And yes, THEY DID OUT VOTE US! That is how tWit won!.[/quote:3df50ua7] Are the "religious nuts" who are "found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states" really any different than eco-nuts in the northwest, ultra-liberals in Cali or Mass, or any other special interest group? Or does it just bother you because you blame these "religious nuts" for the big loss of the Dems? The Democrats had a wonderful chance to win but they blew it big time with the REALLY left-wing nut jobs that they fielded. Don't worry, though. Democrats really ARE better politicians than Republicans and they've learned their lessons well, I'd say. Next election will be a whole other story. [quote:3df50ua7] Then you know that W's grandfather sold weapons to the Nazi's when it was illegal to do so and got arrested for it? The family is all war profiteers.[/quote:3df50ua7] I know that there was some international banking involved and Prescott Bush happened to be on the board of the bank. I also know that the primary German involved was imprisoned by the Nazis and had actually split with the Nazi party before WWII even began because he disagreed with their treatment of Jews and other minorities. Prescott was NOT guilty of selling weapons to the Nazis, though, and he went on in later life to serve in Congress so any charges were done away with.... view post


posted 02 Mar 2005, 15:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":2t9k5wtb] Yes, and if you cannot see the difference, there is no point in talking to you about this. [/quote:2t9k5wtb] Wow. What a cop-out! No point in talking to me about this? How is one special interest group any different than another? Oh...wait...the "religious nut" special interest group is a large one whose votes destroyed any chance that your preferred (or reluctantly accepted) candidate had of winning! If it had gone your way, would your attitude be different? [quote:2t9k5wtb]Also. international banking? You could call it that. :roll:[/quote:2t9k5wtb] You can call it that because that's what it is. As I noted above, all involvement ended before WWII began. Read up on it. A little information is a wonderful thing. view post


posted 02 Mar 2005, 15:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Echoex":3nvykzy0]"I believe that there is something greater than us and that we are part of some purpose but I don't think that anyone can know exactly what that purpose is or can fully comprehend a being that is so much more than us." Can I ask why you believe that we're part of some purpose? Can we not be random and anomalous? I think the human ego is too fragile and soft to accept that our existence is really meaningless.[/quote:3nvykzy0] Just a feeling. No logic involved. Can our purpose not actually BE to lead a random existence...? It doesn't really matter, anyway. Whether there is something greater or whether there is just randomness that we fortuitously arouse out of, we can't grasp the bigger picture or ever know for sure so the point is actually moot unless you just want to sit around and theorize (which is sometimes fun). view post


posted 03 Mar 2005, 01:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:35xizqk2]I know it is, but if you cannot see the difference between someone that thinks our environment is in shambles because he reads what is going on in scientific journals and someone that bases their life on an imaginary friend, that is your problem.[/quote:35xizqk2] I work as an environmental and mining consultant. I don't see an environment in shambles. Sorry, but you're in the realm of belief as opposed to fact and, like religion, it can't really be argued. Facts are facts. The environment is as good as it's gonna get unless you subscribe to genocide and the collapse of civilization as we know it to "correct" the biosphere. I won't argue with you on the Prescott Bush thing because I'm sure that he and his circle WERE trying to profit from war...but they WERE NOT profiting from it by being direct party to the atrocities committed by the Nazis as most who bring it up are trying to imply. view post


posted 03 Mar 2005, 01:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Annabel":nm0j85je] Then, why should other countries bother to follow trade agreements, environmental agreements, etc? By that standard, Iraq was absolutely right to deny UN inspectors. And Korea has the right to build the bomb and Russia is within its rights to sell nuclear materials and know-how to whomever they wish. [quote:nm0j85je] Why? They don't have to follow trade agreements and such if they don't want to do so and ALL countries treat such agreements as being worth the paper they're written on when it suits them to do so. Iraq DID have the right to deny UN inspectors, Korea DOES have the right to build nuclear weapons and Russia DOES have the right to sell nuclear materials and know-how to whomever they wish. The US also has the right to do as they please and, since we are bigger and badder than other nations, we normally get our way if we choose to flex our muscles enough. Iraq is just one example of MAKING an example. [quote:nm0j85je]You mean Reagan's trickle down econ theories that worked so well in the 80's? And, how do you guaranty the money and breaks trickle down to Joe Schmo? [/quote:nm0j85je] It always does. And, by the way, it's not Reagan's theories. It is called free market capitalism. It works. It's been proven to work and it continues to work. Corporations don't hold on to money. Rich people don't hold on to money. They make it work for them by investing it in more businesses or in existing businesses. Those businesses generate jobs and goods. Those jobs bring people money and those goods are used by those people. THAT is how Joe Schmo gets the money. [quote:nm0j85je]How does that work? All the honest CEO's on Wall Street say, gee, I have $2M in tax cuts this year from the administration -- guess I'll give everybody raises . . . or . . . maybe I just buy a new yacht. [/quote:nm0j85je] So what if they do? The yacht was made by someone and will be maintained by someone, thereby giving jobs. You sound very bitter or very young. What someone does with their money is their own business, actually, but "the rich" didn't get rich by hoarding money. They got it by investing it wisely...and that doesn't mean taking it down to the brokerage, either. Most people who are VERY rich actually invest very little in anything but their own businesses. [quote:nm0j85je]Its fucking laughable really. [/quote:nm0j85je] It's fucking laughable that you actually believe that socialism works better than capitalism!! [quote:nm0j85je] Conservatives and neo-cons say that socialists are deluded -- "if men were angels we wouldn't need government" being the criticism of marxism. And, yet we trust our private citizens to "spread the wealth" and let it "trickle down". [/quote:nm0j85je] Why not...????!?!?!? Who better than to trust than private citizens? Surely you aren't so ignorant of reality that you think that the GOVERNMENT manages money more wisely than private citizens?!?! [quote:nm0j85je] Come on!! Whatever carrot you put out there (e.g., if you invest it back in the company, you can make that money grow), a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush. And, people are driven by greed more than wisdom. [/quote:nm0j85je] Obviously. :roll: [quote:nm0j85je]And just to expand on this point, why tax breaks to companies and the wealthy when you need a healthy middle class for a democracy to thrive? I mean 1% of the population in the U.S. earns more than $100K and up a year. I'm in that group and, you know what, I don't need more tax breaks.[/quote:nm0j85je][/quote:nm0j85je][/quote:nm0j85je] And what, exactly, do you do that earns you more than $100K per year but yet you don't understand simple economics? view post


posted 03 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":lkpa9xgu][quote="amadah":lkpa9xgu] Breaks to big business ARE breaks to you. Again, read about capitalism and trace out where the money goes. It doesn't just sit in the pocket of some company. Money gets spent, in gets INVESTED...it GROWS and it's up to YOU to make it grow for YOU. The government only sets the stage.[/quote:lkpa9xgu]This is the biggest bunch of bullshit yet. Trickle down economics only created the biggest deficit this country has ever seen every time it was put into use. Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger try this bullshit and hurt thgis country finacially, but they knew what they were doing, lining the pockets of the people that got them elected. The fact is, big businesses do not move that money along, it stays right where it goes, their pockets.[/quote:lkpa9xgu] I'm very curious where your economics education was obtained. Big business doesn't move the money along...? It goes in their pockets? No. That's impossible. Businesses use their profits to GROW. If you mean that they invest profit back in themselves, then I'll have to agree but otherwise not. Money that sits doesn't grow. The purpose of money is to be USED. As for Reagan and the two Bush presidents creating a deficit...?! I suppose that you believe that the booming economy of the 1990's was an isolated event that had no connection to what came immediately before? Do you think that Clinton-era economic policies were somehow good...that the economic ventures of the Democratic party are enriching? If so, then how do you explain the bottom dropping out in the last year of the Clinton administration? You need to look past Annabel's "1 bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" thinking and see how the economy actually works. Here is a prophecy for you: We will enjoy another booming economy before the end of the second Bush term in office. It will not, unfortunately, be as big as that of the 1990's because we won't have the internet around as a new tool, but it will be a boom as history knows booms. view post


posted 03 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Philosophy Discussionwho should determine what is "right"? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Who should determine determine what is "right"? Why, me, of course! Is there any doubt? :roll: view post


posted 06 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

finding this conversation interesting although I doubt you and I will ever agree on anything or learn anything. Sad but true that's how these conversations go.[/quote] How true. By the way, though...I'm only insulting you to the degree that I feel you're insulting me... [quote:mx8m2xky] As for credentials and what I do for a living, I'll show you mine when you show me yours. As much as they are worth - often times not more than the paper they are written on.[/quote:mx8m2xky] And how do you propose for us to do this? [quote:mx8m2xky] You assume I am young and/or bitter. I guess that means your old and cynical, huh?[/quote:mx8m2xky] Old? Not really. "Only" 34. Cynical? There is no doubt that term applies. [quote:mx8m2xky]I actually think that capitalism is a good thing - to a point. We don't have a free market system. You know that. The debate circles on around how free it should actually be. Where the controls lie and which abuses we should prevent. Taxes are a necessary evil. [/quote:mx8m2xky] Exactly. I believe that the more free the better. I believe that Smith's "invisible hand" will guide as necessary and the end result will be the best result in that situation. I KNOW that WE as human beings CANNOT predict what will happen and cannot CONTROL the economy but can only steer it in general directions and hope that forces that are either outside of our sphere of influence and/or are unforseen don't derail it or guide it where we don't want it to go. IF we could ever actually be able to account for all (or even most) of the variables, then I'd be FOR more control. Since, however, the economy actually includes the variables for pretty much everything else in the world to one degree or another, I don't see that ever happening. [quote:mx8m2xky] But where do the tax cuts go? Again, I ask why to the wealthiest?[/quote:mx8m2xky] Because the actions of the wealthiest control the economy to a greater extent than those in lower economic "classes" (hate to say it like that, though). Maybe it is better to say that holders of more capital have more influence over the total capital in the economy more so than holders of less capital. This is why tax cuts SHOULD go to those whose actions with said capital from tax cuts will generate more of an effect on the overall economy. [quote:mx8m2xky] You claim it was the prior 2 Republican administrations that led to the Clinton budget surplus. [/quote:mx8m2xky] No, though I implied it. The Clinton budget surplus had nothing to do with Clinton, by the way. It had EVERYTHING to do with money moving in the US economy, though, since every time money moves, the government takes a cut. An economic boom creates more taxes and, providing that government spending is not increased over and above the level of what comes in, then there will be a budget surplus. Bill GATES, by the way, is more responsible for the economic boom of the 1990's than Bill CLINTON... Look at it this way... You (or someone else) said or implied that Bush had created a budget deficit through his fiscal policies. Add up the tax cuts and any increase in spending over the Clinton administration (primarily the war expenses) and see if that number equals the current budget. It does NOT. So, then, what happened? Economy is sluggish, money changes hands less and so therefore less tax revenue. The economy slowed down after seven years of Democratic fiscal policy but had sped up after 12 years of Republican fiscal policy. Is there a correlation? I certainly believe so but I am, of course, a libertarian and capitalist pig. [quote:mx8m2xky]Is there some scientific way to show causation? This concept of trickle-down economics working or not working has been debated endlessly.[/quote:mx8m2xky] Again, it becomes a matter of belief. If there was a definite way to show it beyond a shadow of doubt, then there wouldn't be debates. Everyone has their own beliefs and those beliefs matter more in their reasoning than fact. [quote:mx8m2xky]But the income gap between the rich and the poor has been growing in the past decades and that is not good thing for government stability.[/quote:mx8m2xky] I guess the poor need to get off their asses and go do something other than rely on government programs financed by the tax dollars of those who ARE productive. You say you make $100K+ per year...did you get there by sitting around and not working or thinking? Was it luck or ability/drive? Are you willing to share your $100K income with a person who makes $0 so that each of you make $50K? [quote:mx8m2xky]As for various nation states using military power to basically do as they please, I suppose that is the way of things. Might makes right and its a big bad world out there.[/quote:mx8m2xky] It is. [quote:mx8m2xky] Lets kill or bomb or dominate or exploit all those countries out there that we can. [/quote:mx8m2xky] We do. Other countries definitely exploit the US. No doubt. Life is about getting what you want, whether than is an individual "you" or a collective "you". [quote:mx8m2xky] Throw all notions of good or bad out the window when it comes to the international arena. [/quote:mx8m2xky] I have very strong notions of good and evil but I also realize that it IS a big, bad world out there. If you DO NOT kick the schoolyard bully in the balls every now and then, you're gonna get your lunch money taken away. The USA is really VERY nice in it's dealings with other nations. What other country gives as much and as freely as the USA? What country ALWAYS sends aid to countries in need? You got...the USA. NO ONE else. [quote:mx8m2xky] But, really, what did our country gain out of invading Iraq?[/quote:mx8m2xky] In the most basic terms? We showed that we could and that we WOULD. Despite any claims of anything else, I firmly believe that in private conversations, Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice "high-five" one another and congratulate themselves on kicking Saddam's ass simply because he refused us. Was there some residual resentment about the first Gulf War? OF COURSE there was. I have no doubt. A show of force periodically goes a LONG way in the international community. Talk of poor relations with other nations is funny. Other nations deal with the USA because of mutual benefit, not because we're buddies. [quote:mx8m2xky]My gas prices are still pretty high. I mean what did all those Iraqis and U.S. soldiers die for if I can't get a better price at the gas station? [/quote:mx8m2xky] My thoughts exactly. [quote:mx8m2xky] Security on U.S. soil? I think better immigration and travel policies might serve us better on that score. [/quote:mx8m2xky] Oh, God, NO! I don't think isolationism is a good thing, if you're talking about restricting things. Not at all. [quote:mx8m2xky]And lets not forget that Al-Quaeda were not in Iraq.[/quote:mx8m2xky] Were they not...? Come on...do you really believe that? [quote:mx8m2xky]Nor the weapons of mass destruction.[/quote:mx8m2xky] Ho, hum... Saddam had (1) possessed WMD before, (2) money to buy WMD and/or their components, (3) an industrial and knowledge base to build WMD, (4) had used WMD in war before and, finally (5) had used WMD on his own people. To me, it doesn't matter in the least whether he had any WMD or not at the time of the invasion. He had the ability to make them and the will to use them on ANYONE that he pleased. ************************************* Long post. Sorry. I enjoy some of these internet debates, though the medium leaves something to be desired. BTW...I am actually NOT some right-wing nut, despite the beliefs cited above. I very much believe that our political system works well because of dynamic tension between two opposing parties/points-of-view. To go too far one way or another invites disaster. Facism or socialism...both bad choices... :D view post


posted 06 Mar 2005, 03:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":3loedtse]Just a couple of questions for Amadah: What is the social function of money?[/quote:3loedtse] That question is much more than just seven words...! Please clarify, if you would. I am accustomed to the phrase "social function of money" as being part of the rhetoric of communism/socialism, which I reject out of hand. [quote:3loedtse]What is the purpose of economy?[/quote:3loedtse] Of "economy" or of "the economy"? The latter, I am assuming, and you probably mean in the broadest of senses, but please clarify. [quote:3loedtse]What determines our obligations to others?[/quote:3loedtse] Our own values which are, in turn, thrust upon us by the societies in which we live (in the general sense) or upon a particular situation in which we find ourselves (in a more specific one). As an aside: Absolutely LOVE your books. Just finished the second one today. Although I like what you've done with the characters, I eagerly await more history and descriptions of cultures and physical locations. Most original stuff that I've read for a long, long time... view post


posted 06 Mar 2005, 15:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":2mudfuzk] This is horse shit, we would spend it if we had any money. All I see these people doing with their money is demanding more of their workers, to the point of overtime for a lot of people going to the wayside, and they invest their profits in their business, and also in themselves. It doesn't go anywhere, the market is not the people, the companies are not the people, the people see nothing but the cost of living skyrocket but not their salaries.[/quote:2mudfuzk] Overtime going by the wayside? But you said you worked 70 hours per week...? Investing the profits in the business is bad? How? They are growing the business and providing jobs for the employees. Investing the profits in themselves? How is that bad? Their ideas and risks MADE the profits, even if the labor was your labor. "They" are entirely justified in spending the profits in whatever manner they choose. Why do you begrudge this? [quote:2mudfuzk]As Annabel said, the divide between CEO's and their workers income is the highest it has ever been in U.S history. It is somthing like 130 percent more. Is it like that in the UK or Canada? Hell no. I think it is 13%. It is ridiculous. [/quote:2mudfuzk] It IS ridiculous. Why are the CEOs of companies in the UK and Canada working for so little? Perhaps they aren't as efficient? Perhaps THAT is the reason that the US leads the world? That the cream rises to the top? That you get REWARDED for your abilities and accomplishments rather than being forced to work for just a little more than the people under you who DID NOT get the education and/or put forth the effort that you did? I have to laugh every time someone brings up a statistic like that. Stand-alone examples mean very little, if anything. Canada is a paradise? The UK is a paradise? Look at crime rates in the latter. Look at land area vs. population and who their southern neighbor is in the former case. There are more things at work that must be considered. [quote:2mudfuzk]Workers are being forced to work more and more for less and less. Minimum wage hasn't risen in how may god damned years?[/quote:2mudfuzk] A rise in minimum wage leads to greater unemployment. It's an economic fact. [quote:2mudfuzk] Fuck the overall economy. People need food, and not dog food a la the Reagan years.[/quote:2mudfuzk] Fuck the overall economy? Yeah, that's an intelligent thing to do. [quote="Annabel":2mudfuzk]Holy shit, I hope that is sarcasm. Christ, I work my damn ass off at a decent job that requires skill, knowledge, and experience to do. I am not well off, I make a good standard wage for my area, I am not in debt, but unless I work 70 hours a week, which I sometimes do, I am not getting ahead. Compared to these people that got rich when they inherited their money and do nothing(read-BUSH The Younger) I work my asshole off and get nothing for it except a pat on the back for "keeping the bottom line in mind before your own needs." And I have a decent boss. I wonder how bad it is for some people that, even though they should be in college, cannot go because it was not a financially viable option. To say that we should "get off our asses and work harder" is not only asinine, but shows a certain lack of compasion for others.[/quote:2mudfuzk] Not sarcasm at all. If you make little money and work so much and don't accept the situation, then you should go do something else rather than bitch about it. Resenting W because he inherited money does no good. Asinine? Nah. Lack of compassion for others? Nah. I just hold in contempt the attitude that people with a lot of money did nothing to get it and do nothing to keep it and/or grow it. I also hold in contempt those who do not wish to better themselves but only wish to bring others down. [quote="Annabel":2mudfuzk] That maybe true, but it is also the philopsophy of very selfish people.[/quote:2mudfuzk] Welcome to reality. [quote:2mudfuzk]Wow, none of that is the point. We were lied to just to get us into a war only the NeoCons wanted. That is the point. Bush's whole staff should be impeached based on that fact alone. These people will do anything to get what they want even if it is a war that should not have happened.[/quote:2mudfuzk] It IS the point, actually. The only thing that was "wrong" is that the citizens of this country aren't, in general, bright enough to understand anything other than a direct threat and sometimes not even then. [quote="amadah":2mudfuzk] Being a centrist, in my opinion, is taking the easy way out. Some people say it is all about compromise, but how can you compromise your ideals and beliefs? What happened to integrity? Moderates are not helping anything, they are keeping the status quo in place. What are these peoples ideals? Whatever the news says it should be? I have a lot more respect for conservatives and liberals that have genuine beliefs that they can back up. I can honestly say that our gov't has none of these people. We have yes men that are looking perpetually towards the next election.[/quote:2mudfuzk] Being a centrist is just as valid a position as any other. A centrist wants to maintain the status quo...so be it. A leftist wants things to go their way, too...what's the difference? Why would being a centrist compromise ideals and beliefs? Why would being a centrist be a loss of integrity? Moderates aren't helping anything? I submit that moderates are far more helpful than anyone leaning too far to either side. The news is normally liberally-biased...NOT centrist. You don't seem to have any respect for anyone who doesn't share your own ideals... And, finally, something with which I CAN agree...we have WAY too many career politicians. view post


posted 06 Mar 2005, 18:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":nigb2me0] This answer puzzles me. Social function is neither 'left' nor 'right.' Money does in fact have a very clear, very powerful social function. I was just wondering what you think it is...[/quote:nigb2me0] In my long ago readings of various doctrines, that particular phrase always jumped at me out of Marxist doctrine...hence the association. I don't really understand the question, I guess.... :?: [quote:nigb2me0]Let's say [i:nigb2me0]our[/i:nigb2me0] economy, then. What's the point of our economy? What should it be doing?[/quote:nigb2me0] The point? Hmmm....to ME, the economy simply IS. It exists without necessarily having a point. It is the interaction of individuals and groups in the necessary exchange of goods and services....and I suppose it should be doing that in the most efficient manner possible, though I'm almost certain that this isn't the answer that you were looking for.... [quote:nigb2me0] So our obligations to others are simply the result of how we're socialized? Which is to say, if I feel obligated to others, and you don't, there's no fact of the matter that makes me or you right or wrong?[/quote:nigb2me0] Yes, pretty much. However convoluted this may sound, I am not, myself, morally relativistic, but I believe that moral relativism is a fact. I merely choose to disregard it and hold to my own beliefs, however "right", "wrong" or otherwise they might or might not be. If you hold one belief and I hold a diametrically opposed one, they are both still [i:nigb2me0]beliefs[/i:nigb2me0] and not facts, though these beliefs might form the entire foundation of our respective subjective existences. :wink: For example, you might feel an obligation to donate 10% of your income to charity and your religion might, in fact, require you to do so. My own belief is that religious institutions should not get a penny of my personal income, regardless of what aid they might render to others or even to me in the years to come. Who is right? Both of us, from one point of view and neither from another but each from our own. For years I've laughed at people trying to find a meaning to their lives. I believe that there is no meaning beyond what we make of it but my own meanings are definitely rooted in some sort of Judeo-Christian Americanized independent-thinking (within certain boundaries) rebellious place... :D Oh...yeah...I guess the answer to your question is a qualified "yes". :lol: view post


posted 06 Mar 2005, 18:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":30x8ojw2] It's just been my experience that these kinds of debates break along certain 'hinge positions,' which once clarified, allow the real issues to come to the fore, and cut down on cross-purpose sniping - which resolves nothing at all. [/quote:30x8ojw2] Forgot to comment on this....! Does anything ever REALLY get resolved...? Or does each party just keep holding to their respective [i:30x8ojw2]beliefs[/i:30x8ojw2] and go their own way, shaking their heads at the other party's "ignorance"? Although I like messing around on various forums like this and debating others in person, I cannot remember any situation in which anyone's position was changed substantially. It's the old "politics and religion" thing which never really gets resolved because it IS a matter of belief rather than fact. The only time that I see a person's basic beliefs change is when they are confronted by a major LIFE-CHANGING event such as becoming a parent, converting to a different religion (in which case I believe they were looking to fill a void, anyway), seeing a lot of death, etc. An example of a change in political beliefs that made me laugh was when I was watching Jay Leno (I believe) interview Dave Chapelle. Chapelle (a comedian, if you are unfamiliar with the name) is black and so is (or was), fairly predictably, a Democrat. Leno asked him prior to the presidential elections who he favored. Chapelle replied wryly that he used to see the Democratic stance as the way to go but, since he'd made a lot of money with his comedy show, the Republican party looked better and better. While this was said in a joking manner, I have little doubt that he truly meant it. Major life changes make for switches in points of view. I don't otherwise believe in firm resolutions to debates involving personal philosophy. Whew! Sorry for the rambling....! :D view post


posted 07 Mar 2005, 01:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1p83f753]I agree, these things don't typically resolve in anyone abandoning their position wholesale - there's nothing in the subject matter that can command consensus, as there is in, say, scientific debates. But then it all depends on how those involved approach the issue. Personally I've had my head turned right around, as have many people I know, through the course of debates. So long as those involved both agree from the outset, that odds are they're mostly wrong (and odds [i:1p83f753]are[/i:1p83f753], in fact, that we are mostly wrong) then the argument need not be about defending conclusions, as opposed to [i:1p83f753]considering[/i:1p83f753] them.[/quote:1p83f753] Agreed. [quote:1p83f753]I'm not sure how to rephrase the question about the social function of money. Are you saying you don't know what it is? If not, it would be a good place to start.[/quote:1p83f753] Let's assume that I do not...or that I am not, at least, cognizant of it in whatever context you're looking for.... [quote:1p83f753]As for the purpose of our economy... Isn't it simply to work for the benefit of all its members? That's why most of the world's centrally planned economies 'failed,' is it not? They were more detrimental to their members than market economies were.[/quote:1p83f753] I can't quite agree that the economy's purpose is to [i:1p83f753]benefit[/i:1p83f753] it's members. That [i:1p83f753]should[/i:1p83f753] happen, of course, but the purpose of the economy is to enable the exchange of goods and services and in doing so [i:1p83f753]should[/i:1p83f753] benefit but does not always and does not for everyone, not even in the most perfect of examples. [quote:1p83f753]I'm not sure I understand you position regarding values. You're a relativist who thinks you are nevertheless essentially right? I'm not sure that makes sense! :) [/quote:1p83f753] My values are right [i:1p83f753]for me[/i:1p83f753] in [i:1p83f753]my own[/i:1p83f753] life. They aren't necessarily applicable across the board even to people in the same situation(s). I choose to apply the label "libertarian" to myself because that viewpoint most closely resembles my own. I live my own life without disturbing others (unless they are a potential threat to me and mine in some manner) and expect others to do the same. Make any sense? [quote:1p83f753]Even still, wouldn't you say that dependency entails obligations?[/quote:1p83f753] I would say that if you [i:1p83f753]allow[/i:1p83f753] dependency, then obligations [i:1p83f753]should[/i:1p83f753] follow. I chose to have children and thereby allow their dependency on me. In my worldview, I have obligations to them. There are others out there, fortunately few, who might not feel that way. view post


posted 08 Mar 2005, 16:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

:x :x :x :x Just had a long and informative post LOST by losing my connection!!!!!!! Let's see...in brief: 1. Agree about the social function of money but must point out that it's not about the money itself but the things that money can buy. 2. "Yes" about the trap. Any time anyone asks questions for you to answer, you are drawn into a framework of THEIR choosing and I don't fight on someone else's turf if I can help it. 3. Disagree about the libertarian position supporting the status quo. Libertarianism, as [i:3ka4xx50]I[/i:3ka4xx50] understand it, wants some changes. 4. Agree that a pure libertarian position [i:3ka4xx50]as most understand it[/i:3ka4xx50] is as wrong as the opposite ideology. It's a Utopian ideal that the vast majority of people couldn't handle. By way of example, look at our own Industrial Revolution, it's accomplishments, it's excesses and what came out of them for both the good and the bad. 5. I believe (as I think I've stated elsewhere on this forum) that dynamic tension between the two ideologies is best but I also firmly believe that the tug-of-war needs to position most of the rope on the right rather than the left. I believe in libertarianism and the free market on a different plane than what most do. Step up above the two ideologies and you see nothing on EITHER side but people looking after their own self-interests. Each ideology professes to help the greatest number with their philosophy. Fact of the matter is that the invisible hand is STILL at work here. Hearkening back to the Industrial Revolution example, we see lots and lots of people making money and lots of people working for little money and in poor conditions and companies (and individuals) doing as they pleased. Government steps in (ONLY because the government IS the people and enough people with enough say in things got together and made sure it happened) and regulates and pulls it back to a more "reasonable" level. In the long run, overall and in the "big picture" (to try and cover everything), the idea of the free market still rules over all. Socialism and communism are just words for extreme examples of controls that occur in response to capitalism gone too far but they are still part of the system. Anyway, I think that sums up my position a little better for you, though still not as good as the long-ass post that I lost. Go ahead with your reasoning. I am very interested in hearing it. view post


posted 08 Mar 2005, 17:03 in Interviews and ReviewsR.A. Salvatore mentions Scott in passing by Anonymous, Subdidact

I will admit to having read several of Salvatore's books, though it shames me to do so. I have read both of Bakker's books. Salvatore's creations don't hold a candle to Bakker's and they are, in fact, "somewhere between 'porn mag' and 'harlequin romance'" as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, guys...how does Drizz't Do'Urden compare with any of Bakker's characters? Pretty poorly. view post


posted 08 Mar 2005, 19:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

I [i:rs9oaczv]hate[/i:rs9oaczv] it when that happens. I always ctrl-C my longer posts for that very reason - either that or paste from Notepad. I think this gives us good place to start! Just a couple of things (digressions, more like :wink: ). More as an aside than anything else, I wouldn't identify yourself as a libertarian, if I were you, because I'm not sure you share much more than some sympathies with them. Also, I think you're dead wrong on the questions. Certain questions - [i:rs9oaczv]leading[/i:rs9oaczv] questions - can create the situation you describe, but the way you frame it makes it sound like answering questions is always a mistake, which is tantamount to saying that genuine debate is a mistake! If, in the course of answering questions, you find yourself committed to further claims, that simply [i:rs9oaczv]has[/i:rs9oaczv] to be a good thing, either because it reveals unknown inconsistencies in your view (which can't be fixed until they're identified), or because it leads you to a more powerful view (and since it's pretty much a given that we are all duped in someway, that means there's always a better view to be had!). The only way I can see answering being a negative in the way you suggest is if the point of argumentation is [i:rs9oaczv]winning[/i:rs9oaczv] as opposed to expanding one's perspective. But then that's argument in the sense of 'quarrelling,' not in the sense of giving and asking for reasons. The last point has to do with socialism, which is [i:rs9oaczv]not[/i:rs9oaczv] 'communism lite,' and though the right always makes this comparison, it is nothing more than a fallacious guilt-by-association tactic, possessing no more force than left-wing cries of facism. But enough of that. Onto the points... Let's start with money first, just to keep things manageable. MONEY Most people understand money in a 'local' sense, as the means to buy what we want. You suggest that this is 'what money is in itself,' but in point of fact, you're wrong. What money is in itself is simply pieces of inked paper, or numbers on a bank statement. What money 'is in itself' is arbitrary - we could use plastic chits, or beads on a string. What is essential about money are the human [i:rs9oaczv]actions[/i:rs9oaczv] prompted by these arbitrary markers. You can have all the paper currency in the world, and you would have little more than paper to roll your joints if no one [i:rs9oaczv]behaved[/i:rs9oaczv] as if that paper were money. Money, in the simplest terms, is access to the actions of other individuals, either in the form of goods, which require the actions of others to manufactures, or in the form of services. This is why people with money are 'powerful.' Power is simply the control of other's actions, and people regularly cede their actions in exchange for money - which is to say, access to the actions of others. As members of the most intensely interdependent society in the history of the human race, we have [i:rs9oaczv]no choice[/i:rs9oaczv] but to cede our actions in exchange for the actions of the myriad others we depend on. Now in a market system, the monetary value of our actions is determined by the vagaries of supply and demand. All of us, by and large, surrender similar portions of our lives doing actions we would not otherwise do in exchange for money. The easier our particular actions are to replace, the less money we typically receive. This is simply a fact: in our market system, though we all generally give the same number of action-hours, the access to the action-hours of others that we receive in exchange is anything but the same. Those who work for minimum wage, for instance, give the most action-hours in return for the least. The opposite could be said of millionaires. In fact, this is what relative wealth and poverty basically consists of: the ratio of actions given to actions received. It is a fact that relative wealth depends on relative poverty. Without the working poor giving more than they receive, the wealthy couldn't receive more than they give. For me, this was a crucial step in my conversion from a right wing 'fiscal conservative' to a socialist: understanding the systematic relationship between poverty and wealth. Before it simply never occurred to me that the two were interrelated. There was just a bunch of lucky or hardworking rich people and a bunch of unlucky or lazy poor people. I looked at our system in asystematic terms - as a bunch of disconnected individuals who had to take responsibility for themselves. But this was simply an illusion of my ignorance, which in turn was a product of both my hardwiring (I evolved to cognize small communities of 100 to 200 people, not mass conglomerations of 100's of millions), and my socialization in the 'cult of individualism,' which trains us to look at people in isolation from one another, and to think of all things collective as uncool (when was the last time the action hero got something done by working [i:rs9oaczv]within[/i:rs9oaczv] the organization? Everyone knows he's gotta go it alone!). I, like everyone else, thought myself independent, tough-minded, and self-sufficient - when in fact I belonged to the most [i:rs9oaczv]dependent[/i:rs9oaczv] generation in history! Then I realized: our society, like every other society in history, had developed a belief system that abetted the status quo. We call it individualism. We are [i:rs9oaczv]cogs[/i:rs9oaczv], through and through, and yet we all style ourselves self-contained mechanisms, with little or no real understanding of our social position. When the forces that so profoundly shape us remain in the dark, then it seems clear that 'everyone makes a choice, they have to own up to.' But that simplicity is illusory, a function of confusing ignorance of one's social dependencies for the absence of such dependencies. If relative wealth is systematically dependent on relative poverty (and it in fact is), then the question of 'taking responsibility' for one's social position becomes a very vexed question. It's hard to understand how one could take responisibility for something they're entirely ignorant of anyway! This is where the 'blame game' begins, and things become less factual, and more partisan. But does this make sense so far? Just remembered to ctrl-C this!!! view post


posted 09 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Damned machines! I replied again but lost it. Too much work to repeat it tonight. Will do so tomorrow.... :( view post


posted 10 Mar 2005, 23:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

*pops head in* Very thought provoking discussion, this. I just thought I had to reply to this. I think the Revered Author is absolutely right concerning [i:xbguyxgd]power[/i:xbguyxgd] and concerning money as an expression of power. (hadn't looked at money that way before. Fascinating. It's not the only kind of power, though) Yes, the wealthy receive bigger rewards for the same amount of effort. Yes, one could see this as unfair. (Hell, I see it as unfair.) Yes, right-wing politics will maintain this as the status quo, or even aggravate it. But this does not consider the factor of prosperity. Whilst there will always be rich and poor, powerful and weak, this does not mean a system like capitalism can't increase the [i:xbguyxgd]overal[/i:xbguyxgd] level of prosperity. Does it matter the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich despite the fact they work equally hard, if the standard of living for [i:xbguyxgd]everyone[/i:xbguyxgd] is improved? It depends, of course, on what one holds to be important. Fairness, or prosperity. I'll take prosperity. This also, of course, assumes our current prosperity has been achieved thanks to capitalism. I think it does, but readily admit my knowledge of economics is rudimentary at best. Incidentally, when defending capitalism in this debate I'm a bit of a devil's advocate, since as a European I'd regard even Kerry as an extremist right-wing religious fanatic. ;) view post


posted 11 Mar 2005, 12:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Faelcind Il Danach":2xgaig3c](snip) . . . Its easy in the west to say it helps the prosperity of all but you have to remember that majority of the resources and labor which support our prosperity come from the third world were most people live in as a bad a condition as any in history.[/quote:2xgaig3c] I suspect that you've been given a warped view of history if you're comparing third world countries to all civilizations of all times and saying that they're in as bad a shape. But even so, would you deny that the quality of life in the third world, [i:2xgaig3c]in general[/i:2xgaig3c], is improving due to the funneling of monies from modern industrialized nations into them? view post


posted 13 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Hmmm. Speaking in generalized platitudes is all well and good, though generally some form of mutually agreed-upon evidence is necessary to make any progress with a topic such as this one. How shall we compare? Via landmass or population? Let's just take landmass because I know geography better than I know international demographics. Then think back to a pretty crummy time in history. Saaay, the mid 14th century. What portion of the world, at that time, had quality of life similar to that found in modern industrialized nations? I certainly can't think of any. Indoor plumbing didn't exist, there was no significant governmental regulation of food quality, etc etc etc. The very highest echelons of society, at the time, had poorer sanitation and medical aid than the poverty-ridden here in the States (And similar to, or slightly better than, the average 3rd-world civilian). Significant portions of the modern world have these amenities. All of the industrialized world, for example, and a significant portion of the developing world. The entirety of North America, Europe, large portions of Asia, significant sections of Africa (especially the more developed nations such as Egypt), and so forth. Seems that the modern world is doing pretty well so far. What about the so-called 3rd world countries? Frequently these nations don't have such amenities, but I would propose that if one were to compare the ratios of persons with a high quality of life to those with a low quality of life, on an absolute scale, between today and the 14th century, you'd find that the world is a heckuva' lot better today. I'm not saying that there's no imperfection, I'm not saying that oppression doesn't exist, on the contrary--- the existence of those things is incontrovertible and always will be. I *am* saying that, in general, the modern world is much better off than the world of the plague years. Perhaps I interpreted your statement too literally when you said that in the 3rd world most people live in as bad a condition as any condition in history, but I'd much rather live in the third world today, with gangs and warlords and the whole shebang, than in Europe during the plague years. Or in the USSR during Stalin's reign. Or any number of other times and places. Because you know what? Gangs and warlord and the whole shebang have existed throughout the world, throughout history. They aren't new, they aren't original, they aren't unusual. Now, onto the more relevant point which has less to do with us trying to insult each other. [quote="Faelcind Il Danach":36rs3quq]The money from industrialized nation is certainly helping but I have my doubts as to whether its even close to offseating the extraction of resources and labor from the area in its effects on the the third world.[/quote:36rs3quq] Well, good. At least we agree that the monies being shifted there aren't hurting. I will admit to wondering why the extraction of labor from the area is a bad thing, assuming it isn't a forced extraction. (Which does happen, though generally not to the modern industrialized nations. And when it is, it's black market trade and [i:36rs3quq]certainly[/i:36rs3quq] not endorsed or allowed by the gov't or culture at large). I mean, if the conditions in these third world countries are as awful as you say, wouldn't it be better for these people if they were to work in a developing country? Their quality of life would be higher, to be sure. And as for the resources, that's what's bringing the money into their society, isn't it? (And labor [i:36rs3quq]is[/i:36rs3quq] a resource, by the way.) That's the way it works for [i:36rs3quq]all[/i:36rs3quq] countries! And all people, in fact. If you want money, you've got to give something or you've got to steal it. That's about it. They aren't [i:36rs3quq]owed[/i:36rs3quq] money simply because they have less to start with, or because some warlord 500 years ago set their culture on a self-destructive path which led them to being the 3rd world country they are today instead of an indutrialized nation. The very concept is patently ridiculous. (I [i:36rs3quq]assume[/i:36rs3quq] you're not implying anything of the sort.) What I'm trying to say is that, by definition, they aren't being "cheated" out of their rightful compensation for the resources they provide unless they (A) Are gullible. Like me at a car mechanic. Then they may be cheated, but they aren't blameless-- they should have done their homework. Or (B) Are being coerced. Which is the far more likely possibility of the two. So, as I see it, if your argument is to hold [i:36rs3quq]any[/i:36rs3quq] merit, it must be that you are accusing the industrialized nations of coercing 3rd world countries for their resources. Is that what you're saying, or have I completely missed the mark here? view post


my thoughts posted 25 Mar 2005, 00:03 in Off-Topic Discussionmy thoughts by Anonymous, Subdidact

I thought The darkness that comes before was enigmatic and dry.. after reading it and putting it down for awhile I got my hands on warrior prophet. I'm enthralled with the universe r scott bakker has created, from the perverse synthese to the blue eyed pious men of the tusk. After reading WP I starting reading bits and peices of information regarding the holy crusades. That's how I know this book is a winner, it inspired me to learn. Also I'm a HUGE tale of the malazan fan... I can't wait for book 6. "Our endeavours were far to fierce to know friendship" view post


posted 01 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Isn't that mixing up cause and effect? I've always viewed an economy as a sort of natural, societal side effect of people doing whatever it is they do. An accident, if you will, of cultural give and take. And, as a corollary to that, I don't think that an economy does or should reward creativity or hard work. Nor should an economy maximize opportuinities, or secure the needs of people. An economy does none of these things in itself, it's not an independently capable entity. An economy is a dumb mechanism whose ultimate, sole value is the conveyance of wealth, in one of its many forms, from person A to person B. All those other things are done by people independent of and to an economy. I think that it would also be fair to suggest that all those economical "add-ons" (if you will) decrease the effectiveness/efficiency of an economy's transferring of wealth. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing in all cases, but the more responsibility that we try to place on an economy (which I think is an inherently flawed approach to take in the first place), the more we weigh down the natural flow of commerce between two cooperating parties. view post


posted 06 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

OT: What a great forum. If I had not read the books, (which I have) or I thought they were total crap, (which I don’t) I could read a single thread all night and not do a bit of homework (which I have). Are all philosophers so interesting? That would explain the high divorce rate. Anyway, I hope amadah replies. He’s ahead so far by my count, although I might be biased. I voted for Bush too, I just didn’t realize I had so many good reasons. I must be an ignorant red-stater that loves Jesus and ammo. That’s all I can add to this discussion except a relevant quote from another board... Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican? Here is a little test that will help you decide: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans, and Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus. Republican's Answer: BANG! Southern Republican's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click Daughter: "Nice shooting, Daddy! Were those the Winchester hollow points?" libertarian’s answer: Ask amadah to be sure, but I think the middle one. Sorry for the long post, and thanks for the great books, I love them more than Jesus [i:x7v4r5dr]and[/i:x7v4r5dr] ammo. view post


posted 10 Apr 2005, 06:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionBad, bad book. BAAAD. by Anonymous, Subdidact

Heinlein's [u:387ewh8l]Stranger in a Strange Land[/u:387ewh8l] is about the only book I genuinely wish I hadn't wasted the time on. What an utter load of self-inserted, bombastic tripe. (Idiot me, buying the unabridged version) After [u:387ewh8l]The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[/u:387ewh8l], I thought to myself, "Hey, I might like this author!" Then I discovered that [u:387ewh8l]TMiaHM[/u:387ewh8l] was the exception, not the rule. Bah. One would think that most fiction authors recognize that egotistical self-insertion is a capital crime of all fictional authorship. (And no, self-insertion does not mean that the character has the author's name.) I let Jordan's WoT slide out of my scope around book 6 or 7. As everyone else says, the pacing just went belly-up and I stopped identifying with any of the characters. I just couldn't bring myself to care. I told myself that I was waiting for him to finish so that I could read them all at once. Really, though, I think that I was just sick of being disappointed. Sort of like Eddings' latest books. (I [i:387ewh8l]liked[/i:387ewh8l] the Belgariad! That series had a great sense of humor! What happened? That humor was just about the only thing Eddings had going for him. He only really knows how to write one or two plots... I find myself wondering if his wife is doing more and more of the writing. *shrug* Whatever the reason, his latest offerings are dry and humorless.) I don't really regret any of those books though. view post


Re: Do you believe a God exists? posted 21 Apr 2005, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Grantaire":31yng4pt]And/or what are your religious beliefs? Why?[/quote:31yng4pt] Yes, but then if i choose, can i divorce myself from such beliefs? I find that belief has become so intergrated in my thoughts it many times governs my actions. I find it has become the center of my moral self. In this my belief has become like a god. That resembles a cycle if you can grasp the idea of belief as a god of a god. There are other such cycles as well such as atheist belief in no god which is still belief and therefore thier religion. :cry: view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Anonymous, Subdidact

The christian bible states that there is no one good but god. even christ stated that he was not good. A good question would be is god's perfection reletive to our lack thereof. As far as god's goodness, perhaps kindness is not inherent in perfection. And so in the arena of good verses evil the bible states that good and evil procedth out of the mouth of god and it says that god sent a evil spirit onto King Saul. And on the topic of good and evil being opposites if god is capable of sending a evil spirit can the devil send good spirits? view post


posted 02 May 2005, 22:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

There was a line promoting an old French publication that read: "There are no more Manicheans" "There is me." I always thinking about that, wondering if I am one of the few unrepentant polytheists left. In Perdido Street Station, there's a quick mention about the possibility of gods. Its admitted there are powerful agents, but whether they should be worshipped is another question entirely. I find myself in this camp, as it seems there is enough circumstantial evidence and my own personal gut feeling to accept the supernatural, but nothing to make me define it as lovable or coherent. I would consider allying myself with various such agents through the business dealings of sacrifice, if in fact I was confident I'd receive something in return. But my agnosticism always acts up and I can't commit to any gods. Simply put, I find D&D & fantasy novels to have the most realistic viewpoint on gods than any real religion. view post


posted 05 May 2005, 17:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:1po09joy]Sciborg2: myself i have never really encountered an original version or view of gods in fantasy. seems to me basically, you have the unknown/unknowable type, you have the all-good creator vs. all-bad destroyer type, and you have the capricious, meddling shades of grey type, all of which can be found in human religions. [/quote:1po09joy] Well, I was referring to their carpricious and childish battles to control reality. This is how I see the gods, if they exist--as creatures that feed off of certain memes, certain ideas. I have the problem you presented in your posts, that almost all miracles can be attributed to rational explanations. More importantly, many religions can cite miracles or historical mysteries of faith's power. Its just as, if not more, plausible that there is a psychic field that reacts to our beliefs instead of a sentient creator(s) watching (spying on?) us. Paranormal phenomenon, even when it passes scientific tests, doesn't show us the Truth, only bizarre phenomenon tied to belief. Perhaps we are our own gods? view post


posted 06 May 2005, 21:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

<<It's as the apostle Paul wrote in one of his letters - if Jesus didn't live as we have been taught, if he didn't die, and rise from the dead, then Christians are surely the sorryest bunch in the world. We're laughed at in this life and deny ourselves this and that, and all for nothing>> Actually, I see few Christians laughed at in the Western world, and fewer that deny themselves anything of significance. Though as one priest thought, Christianity's acceptance into the modern world is a sign of its failure. The revolutionary aspects are discarded for the orthodoxy. And best of all, for many in the US at least spiritual warfare can be fought through voting for the "right" guy or "right" laws, or having a candlelight vigil for this or that cause. Now I've met Christians who give everything, risk everything, to do what's right. Christianity's ideals of universal morality and compassion have done the world a ton of good. Many "progressives" don't make the connection that the same morality that can make someone prolife is the same that makes them fight agreed upon humanitarian abuses. None of this, though, determines whether Christianity is real, I just don't think a psychology of martyrdom is adequate proof now or 2000 years ago. As for miracles, notice how so much paranormal phenomenon today focuses around tribal peoples and polytheistic/animistic religions. There was that whole hubaloo about Hindu statues drinking milk in the 90s, something no one has ever made a definite scientific explanation for. I still don't think the Hindu gods are real, or at least do not bear the characteristics ascribed to them. Maybe its my degree in econ, but I see the whole prayer thing as a business--paradise in return for faith, prayers for health/wealth/etc. The gods feed off memes and worship, and give us fortune in return. And since they don't need to be real for us to benefit psychologically, I falter from polytheism into agnosticism. view post


posted 06 May 2005, 22:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

hmmm. i guess i'll have to join if i want to edit my posts. i'll have to look it up, but a large group of people believed that Athena road into town despite the fact that it was a massive hoax, and that the Oracle of Delphi called upon the gods to inflict an oncoming army with earthquakes, fog, and madness. A lot of miraculous stories also surround Siddartha and other Buddhist/Hindu figures, not to mention shared UFO sightings by large groups of people. The Dogon tribe possesses far too many knowledge about a white-dwarf binary star system than their technological progress should enable them to. Currently practitioners of various faiths stemming from the African Diaspora claim to see "miracles" today--including an old university professor of mine. These things make me feel atheism--the patent denial of the supernatural--is a faith as much as any religion. We don't know whats out there, its all mystery view post


posted 07 May 2005, 06:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote:3iv0yxtf]Eastern individualistic religion has always facinated me[/quote:3iv0yxtf] not sure what you mean here H, Hinduism is far from individualistic as practiced in India. If anything, its the opposite as far as most Indians are concerned. when i say the gods--if they exist--are petty or at least not onimpotent, i am not trying to point fingers at any religion. personally, i do see yaweh as a spoiled child, but i figure most beings with that kind of power would behave in such a manner. view post


posted 14 May 2005, 15:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Anonymous, Subdidact

very interesting...[url=http://order.samaraonline.com/norco-medication-norco4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/lamisil-without-prescription-lamisil4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/flexeril-side-effects-flexeril4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/cheapest-lamisil-online-lamisil4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/order-lamisil-lamisil4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/order-klonopin-online-klonopin4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/didrex-online-didrex4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/cheap-cipro-cipro4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/zoloft-free-shipping-zoloft4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/cheap-cipro-online-cipro4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/cheap-diflucan-diflucan4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/zoloft-overnight-zoloft4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/buying-prozac-prozac4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/levitra-use-levitra4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/lamisil-online-pharmacy-lamisil4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/butalbital-use-butalbital4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/buying-soma-online-soma4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/bextra-picture-bextra4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/bextra-drug-bextra4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/buy-cheap-valium-valium4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/lortab-prescription-online-lortab4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/cheapest-hydrocodone-online-hydrocodone4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/ambien-abuse-ambien4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/overnight-paxil-paxil4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp][url=http://order.samaraonline.com/glucophage-picture-glucophage4-buy.html:1cahjtrp][img:1cahjtrp]http://order.samaraonline.com/transp.gif[/img:1cahjtrp][/url:1cahjtrp] view post


posted 17 May 2005, 08:05 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Anonymous, Subdidact

very interesting...[url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/paxil-overnight-paxil-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/order-bextra-online-bextra-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/ultram-canada-ultram-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/cheap-trazodone-online-trazodone-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/cheapest-ambien-ambien-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/canada-sildenafil-sildenafil-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/overnight-bextra-bextra-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/drug-carisoprodol-carisoprodol-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/overnight-zoloft-zoloft-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/zoloft-pharmacy-zoloft-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/ambien-information-ambien-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/buy-celebrex-online-celebrex-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/didrex-discount-didrex-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/tenuate-online-pharmacy-tenuate-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/paxil-on-line-paxil-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/butalbital-description-butalbital-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/buy-cyclobenzaprine-online-cyclobenzaprine-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/valium-overnight-valium-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/overnight-glucophage-glucophage-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/diflucan-medicine-diflucan-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/fluoxetine-free-shipping-fluoxetine-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/drug-viagra-viagra-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/lipitor-addiction-lipitor-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/fioricet-info-fioricet-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1][url=http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/cheapest-phentermine-online-phentermine-buy.html:1aj07rs1][img:1aj07rs1]http://www.fxhost.hopto.org/transp.gif[/img:1aj07rs1][/url:1aj07rs1] view post


posted 03 Jun 2005, 05:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionMore about Erikson books... by Anonymous, Subdidact

They came up with this world together, as friends rpging... view post


posted 03 Jun 2005, 05:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionErikson? by Anonymous, Subdidact

I had given up on fantasy. And then I read Erikson. 'Nuff said. view post


posted 03 Jun 2005, 13:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionMore about Erikson books... by Anonymous, Subdidact

There's an interview of ICE (aren't they awesome initials?) on the MalazanEmpire site or the forums or something. Perhaps one of the less lazy people will provide you with a link (hey, I'm so lazy that I can't bothered joining...yet). In that ICE talks about how they share they world i.e. he came up with the Crimson Guard, so we haven't really seen much of them in SE's books yet. Go have a read of that... view post


posted 16 Jun 2005, 23:06 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Anonymous, Subdidact

I read Deadhouse gates first, and I have to say if it wasnt for that Gardens of the Moon would have been a lot more confusing. I can't find the others in bookstores... looks like I'll have to order them... but deadhouse gates was one of the best fantasy books I have read, in some ways I find it better than LOTR view post


mindfuck book posted 30 Jun 2005, 02:06 in Literature DiscussionBooks that have induced a mindfuck by Anonymous, Subdidact

May I add to the AynRand part, Atlas Shrugged. Totally made me depressed... made me think things you aren't supposed to. Like...life and it all being a huge contradiction on its self. And how we have to have all the good and the bad or we wont exist... geeze. view post


horror posted 30 Jun 2005, 02:06 in Literature DiscussionAny horror fans here? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Horror. Yeah i like horror. I live horror almost every night. Dreams can be pretty f-ed up. But the horror i like best is old horror. Best there is. Like i saw today The Innocents. Pretty good. Old, 0 effects horror flicks are the best. view post


Piercing posted 06 Jul 2005, 03:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionNeed help with holes!!! by Anonymous, Subdidact

Piercing's of any kind are for sissy's or girls. view post


posted 15 Jul 2005, 09:07 in Literature DiscussionWhat science-fiction and/or fantasy series do you prefer? by Anonymous, Subdidact

I would pick Adams by far, but am I missing something or is there a reason no Tolkien? view post


posted 19 Jul 2005, 00:07 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSome Random Thoughts on TTT by Anonymous, Subdidact

Anonymous Proxy ? What's that ? In most cases, general purposes proxy servers ( from proxy list ) do inform the target server about the address of the computer that made the request, transmitting the IP-address and other personal information to the website. But among different kinds of proxy servers ( from proxy list ) there are so called anonymous proxy servers ( from proxy list ) that can hide your IP address, which is a unique ID assigned to identify your location, as well as many other personal information, thereby saving you from vulnerabilities related to it.: http://www.checkproxy.net view post


The fall of Xerius posted 11 Sep 2005, 22:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 13 Sep 2005, 22:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 14 Sep 2005, 02:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 15 Sep 2005, 02:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtXinemus of the Cishaurim by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 16 Sep 2005, 20:09 in Author Q &amp; AThe Nonmen by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


PoN movie posted 20 Sep 2005, 15:09 in Author Q &amp; APrince of Nothing on TV/Big Screen by Anonymous, Subdidact

the only way to come close to a decent PoN movie would mean a cross between gladiator,lotr,and any clive barker movie.or think of an extreme r rated lotr and you might get close. view post


posted 20 Sep 2005, 15:09 in Author Q &amp; AWritten Language by Anonymous, Subdidact

as an avid conlanger i wholeheartedly agree . earwan language has been carefully plotted out i'd love to see a breakdown of kuniuric view post


Xerius vs. Maithanet and related predictions posted 21 Sep 2005, 03:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 26 Sep 2005, 00:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 06 Oct 2005, 00:10 in Off-Topic Discussion*pokes the board with a stick* by Anonymous, Subdidact

Unfortunately, you've joined at a point where its existence is debatable. view post


Pattern posted 11 Oct 2005, 00:10 in Tour and Signing InformationBakka-Phoenix this June 12th by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 13 Oct 2005, 19:10 in Off-Topic Discussion*pokes the board with a stick* by Anonymous, Subdidact

You want something?! Huh, you want something?! Well, here! http://keithschofield.com/pi/std.html view post


posted 13 Oct 2005, 19:10 in Off-Topic Discussion*pokes the board with a stick* by Anonymous, Subdidact

Btw, there is something wrong with these forums. I log in as "Super frog" and when I post it autologs me out and lists the post as guest. Weird. view post


posted 14 Oct 2005, 00:10 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Wow! Been a while. Kept putting off responding and never DID get back to it....until now, of course. [quote:1wp9ugyv] I think this gives us good place to start! Just a couple of things (digressions, more like ). More as an aside than anything else, I wouldn't identify yourself as a libertarian, if I were you, because I'm not sure you share much more than some sympathies with them. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] Perhaps...but it's as good a descriptor as any. I feel that I've advanced beyond regular libertarian philosophy but I have no idea what to call it, so.... [quote:1wp9ugyv]Also, I think you're dead wrong on the questions. Certain questions - leading questions - can create the situation you describe, but the way you frame it makes it sound like answering questions is always a mistake, which is tantamount to saying that genuine debate is a mistake![/quote:1wp9ugyv] Debate can be a mistake. Debate is not necessarily a good thing. Debate can enlighten but it can also muddy the waters. [quote:1wp9ugyv] If, in the course of answering questions, you find yourself committed to further claims, that simply has to be a good thing, either because it reveals unknown inconsistencies in your view (which can't be fixed until they're identified), or because it leads you to a more powerful view (and since it's pretty much a given that we are all duped in someway, that means there's always a better view to be had!). The only way I can see answering being a negative in the way you suggest is if the point of argumentation is winning as opposed to expanding one's perspective. But then that's argument in the sense of 'quarrelling,' not in the sense of giving and asking for reasons. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] "Better view"? I don't know. You would have to define "better". There's always the supposition that there is something "better", but it's not always the case. "Better" is a perception and not an absolute. Debate can be good but, in most instances, it becomes a matter of winning. Show me someone who takes a side in something who ISN'T proud of having the "better" argument. [quote:1wp9ugyv]The last point has to do with socialism, which is not 'communism lite,' and though the right always makes this comparison, it is nothing more than a fallacious guilt-by-association tactic, possessing no more force than left-wing cries of facism. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] I guess so. It's still a matter of perception, though. In the same way that I identify myself as a libertarian when I'm not really, the above statements are the best description that I can do without making up new terms. [quote:1wp9ugyv]But enough of that. Onto the points... Let's start with money first, just to keep things manageable. MONEY Most people understand money in a 'local' sense, as the means to buy what we want. You suggest that this is 'what money is in itself,' but in point of fact, you're wrong. What money is in itself is simply pieces of inked paper, or numbers on a bank statement. What money 'is in itself' is arbitrary - we could use plastic chits, or beads on a string. What is essential about money are the human actions prompted by these arbitrary markers. You can have all the paper currency in the world, and you would have little more than paper to roll your joints if no one behaved as if that paper were money. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] You misunderstood but that's fine. Money IS what it is...and you describe what it is below.... [quote:1wp9ugyv]Money, in the simplest terms, is access to the actions of other individuals, either in the form of goods, which require the actions of others to manufactures, or in the form of services. This is why people with money are 'powerful.' Power is simply the control of other's actions, and people regularly cede their actions in exchange for money - which is to say, access to the actions of others. As members of the most intensely interdependent society in the history of the human race, we have no choice but to cede our actions in exchange for the actions of the myriad others we depend on. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] Agree in many ways but I'm beginning to see that you and I identify some things differently...one of the best ways to lead to disagreement. [quote:1wp9ugyv]Now in a market system, the monetary value of our actions is determined by the vagaries of supply and demand. All of us, by and large, surrender similar portions of our lives doing actions we would not otherwise do in exchange for money. The easier our particular actions are to replace, the less money we typically receive. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] Ah...and here we go. That last sentence is very important. [quote:1wp9ugyv]This is simply a fact: in our market system, though we all generally give the same number of action-hours, the access to the action-hours of others that we receive in exchange is anything but the same. Those who work for minimum wage, for instance, give the most action-hours in return for the least. The opposite could be said of millionaires. In fact, this is what relative wealth and poverty basically consists of: the ratio of actions given to actions received. It is a fact that relative wealth depends on relative poverty. Without the working poor giving more than they receive, the wealthy couldn't receive more than they give. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] And here it is. You seem to be working under the assumption in this particular paragraph that some people's actions are worth more or less than others but that seems to contradict what you said one paragraph above. Wealth and poverty DO depend on luck, on ability, on effort...just because people give relatively equal "action-hours" doesn't mean that, for some reason, they should receive equal compensation. As you pointed out above, the easier our particular actions are to replace, the less money we typically receive. The opposite is also true. The more difficult our actions are to replace, the MORE money we typically receive. [quote:1wp9ugyv]For me, this was a crucial step in my conversion from a right wing 'fiscal conservative' to a socialist: understanding the systematic relationship between poverty and wealth. Before it simply never occurred to me that the two were interrelated. There was just a bunch of lucky or hardworking rich people and a bunch of unlucky or lazy poor people. I looked at our system in asystematic terms - as a bunch of disconnected individuals who had to take responsibility for themselves. [/quote:1wp9ugyv] And this is where we differ. I fully understand the interrelationship between human beings in our society. We are where we are BECAUSE we have specialized more and more and have split up tasks. This does not mean, to me, that we aren't or can't be individualistic. As a matter of fact, it makes ME even BIGGER on the concept of libertarianism and the free market. The better that you as an individual can be at something, the more money (power over the actions of others) that you can get. If you're not that good at anything, then you aren't going to have that. Let's say that, for example, an educated man writes some pretty decent books that get published. There is some luck involved, of course, but there's a lot of hard work and ability involved, too. This guy gets them published and gets money for it. There are other people out there who have written MORE but never been published. There are probably people out there who have written MORE and BETTER (perception again, of course) but never been published because of the luck factor or something else. Should that guy who got published share his money/power with others who have done something equivalent in terms of time but not ability? Let's say that there's 1000 man-hours of the author in a book. Should that compensation be shared with the part-time McDonald's cook who worked 1000 hours in a year? Nope. Relative wealth and relative poverty are only a PART of the huge equation. I take it as a "given" that the wealth of any particular individual is largely dependent on the actions of other individuals...but I DON'T see that as any sort of impediment to my way of thinking. I don't see it as illogical at all. It's just a truth. If not for there even BEING other people, there is no concept of wealth or poverty. There would just be YOU as an individual. To even seek out wealth, you need a society. [quote:1wp9ugyv]But this was simply an illusion of my ignorance, which in turn was a product of both my hardwiring (I evolved to cognize small communities of 100 to 200 people, not mass conglomerations of 100's of millions), and my socialization in the 'cult of individualism,' which trains us to look at people in isolation from one another, and to think of all things collective as uncool (when was the last time the action hero got something done by working within the organization? Everyone knows he's gotta go it alone!). I, like everyone else, thought myself independent, tough-minded, and self-sufficient - when in fact I belonged to the most dependent generation in history! [/quote:1wp9ugyv] Another difference that is, oddly, not really a difference but a matter of perception. I've ALWAYS realized the above but it hasn't affected me as it has you. You can't even have the concept of an individual WITHOUT having more than one person and even two people make a society of sorts. [quote:1wp9ugyv]Then I realized: our society, like every other society in history, had developed a belief system that abetted the status quo. We call it individualism. We are cogs, through and through, and yet we all style ourselves self-contained mechanisms, with little or no real understanding of our social position. When the forces that so profoundly shape us remain in the dark, then it seems clear that 'everyone makes a choice, they have to own up to.' [/quote:1wp9ugyv] I don't believe that individualism abets the status quo. I actually believe the opposite, in general. An "individual", in our society and by my way of thinking, is most often OPPOSED to the status quo...or part of it, anyway. [quote:1wp9ugyv]But that simplicity is illusory, a function of confusing ignorance of one's social dependencies for the absence of such dependencies. If relative wealth is systematically dependent on relative poverty (and it in fact is), then the question of 'taking responsibility' for one's social position becomes a very vexed question. It's hard to understand how one could take responisibility for something they're entirely ignorant of anyway! [/quote:1wp9ugyv] That's perplexing in some cases...but totally irrelevant in others. Take me, for instance. I understand implicity what you're saying but I PERCEIVE the end conclusions differently. Just a different lense. Oh...and relative wealth and poverty are not implicitly dependent on each other. That's too open-ended a statement. You're always going to have a hierarchy of wealth in a society but what does that really matter? It doesn't. Regardless of how the bleeding hearts feel, there ARE people who are worth more as individuals than others and these individuals are worth more to society, in general. [quote:1wp9ugyv]This is where the 'blame game' begins, and things become less factual, and more partisan. But does this make sense so far? [/quote:1wp9ugyv] Makes perfect sense. Like I said above, we just see the world through the different lenses of our respective pasts. With that said, when the hell's your next book coming out? I've taken a different job that keeps me traveling a lot and I need something to read. view post


posted 17 Oct 2005, 11:10 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerwe/Esmenet as Mary Magdalen? by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 10 Nov 2005, 07:11 in Off-Topic DiscussionPlease read and tell me what you think. by Anonymous, Subdidact

Thanks. I wrote it for a school assignment so it still had to fit within the assignment but i tried to make it interesting. I know what you mean with certain parts didnt flow as nicely as others. Im gonna try to make some of those parts better. This was my only my first draft. which parts didnt you think flowed well? view post


posted 10 Nov 2005, 07:11 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="AjDeath":2c6w38kp][quote="Orion_metalhead":2c6w38kp][quote="AjDeath":2c6w38kp]Ephel Duath - pleonasm Anybody else like this wacky jazzy death metallers and their wacky avant-garde jazzy death metal hardcore stew of whackiness.[/quote:2c6w38kp] How good is the new arsis? i have a sample of one of the songs but i havent got a change to hear the whole thing. is it worth buying[/quote:2c6w38kp]YES!!!!!! I enjoy this three song EP more than A Celebration Of Guilt, and I love that album. It completely destroys anything anyother band has done in say, three to four years.[/quote:2c6w38kp] i just heard the title track and it blew me away. i agree with you that it is better than ACoG. Im trying to get it on ebay right now for a bit cheeper than the stores. im also trying to findn the new Akercocke album im having difficulty finding it for less that what i would pay elsewhere. view post


posted 15 Nov 2005, 01:11 in Off-Topic DiscussionPlease read and tell me what you think. by Anonymous, Subdidact

thanks. I see how your right about it being his soul and not having organs and whatnot. im gonna work on it a bit more and take your suggestions into consideration. view post


C. S. Lewis posted 18 Nov 2005, 03:11 in Literature DiscussionFavorite books/series by Anonymous, Subdidact

I've read several sets of fantasy/science fiction books, and I have enjoyed the following two sets the best: C.S. Lewis - Ransom trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet; Perelandra; That Hideous Strength Stephen R. Donaldson - The Gap saga: The Real Story; Forbidden Knowledge; A Dark and Hungry God Arises; Chaos and Order; This Day All Gods Die Enjoy. :D view post


Solid posted 27 Nov 2005, 06:11 in Interviews and Reviewswotmania Interview with Scott by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


Reliability posted 27 Nov 2005, 06:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCnair by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


Things to do posted 27 Nov 2005, 06:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWill Esmi Cause Mandati/Warrior-Prophet Drama? by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


Pride posted 27 Nov 2005, 06:11 in Author Q &amp; AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


Ishual as Shangri-La/Shambhala? posted 28 Nov 2005, 14:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 16 Dec 2005, 17:12 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

Maybe someone knows when TWP will be published in Russia? view post


posted 19 Dec 2005, 05:12 in Literature DiscussionEddings by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Arkmam":3qxr7xsw]First fantasy I read, and I still reread it sometimes (even though I almost know it by heart nowadays).[/quote:3qxr7xsw] same here :) view post


Interview posted 28 Dec 2005, 18:12 in Book ClubSorry I haven't done anything this month, I've been busy. by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Grantaire":kifszrv2]Suggestions for a December discussion? A shorter book would probably be good, so that we could have a discussion prior to everyone being busy around Christmas.[/quote:kifszrv2] So when will we know more [url=http://www.online-poker-55.com:kifszrv2]Free online poker[/url:kifszrv2] [url=http://draw-online-poker-quick.lavoa.com:kifszrv2]secure online poker[/url:kifszrv2] view post


posted 17 Jan 2006, 22:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


How about trying with cialis generic viagra posted 22 Jan 2006, 10:01 in ReviewsReveiw of The Last Kingdom - Bernard Cornwell by Anonymous, Subdidact

I met my husband 15 years ago when I was 22 and he was 40 - used to enjoy a fantastic sex life - he was both well endowed and knew what to do with it - cannot get hard and have not had sex for six months - do you think the drug viagra would work for him? How about trying with [url=http://www.canadadrugdepo.com:1ezu8wn5]cialis generic viagra[/url:1ezu8wn5] for him? view post


A slight disappointment with the appendices...... posted 30 Jan 2006, 17:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 01 Feb 2006, 00:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 01 Feb 2006, 03:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 15 Feb 2006, 00:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionBad, bad book. BAAAD. by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="eowyn1983":3w0aqx6l]Crossroads of Twilight by Robert Jordon (possibly the worst book I have ever read). Lady Oracle by Margaret Atwood. Candide by Voltaire. I'm tempted to put in Wuthering Heights as well but it's a book worth reading for sure (I just hated Heathcliffe with a passion).[/quote:3w0aqx6l] i enjoyed candide. i had to read it for Western Civ this semester and i thought it was pretty funny at parts. Worst book ever - Medalon by Jennifer Fallon. Shes as bad an author as jimmy fallon is a comedian. damn... it was boring and completely cliche... waste of time there. view post


posted 20 Feb 2006, 08:02 in Literature DiscussionCloud Atlas by Anonymous, Subdidact

I occasionally lurk here and haven't been motivated to post, but this thread has caused me to do so. "Cloud Atlas" was an appalling load of rubbish which should never have been nominated for the Booker, let alone won it. It was up against a bunch of novels far, far superior. Colm Toibin's "The Master" should, in my opinion, have won it. However, Alan Hollinghurst's "The Line of Beauty" which did win was certainly orders of magnitude better than Mitchell's tricksy, gimmicky, superficial "Cloud Atlas". "Cloud Atlas" is the perfect example of the postmodern, game-playing nonsense that characterises so much of the work of the last decade, and which will not even be mentioned in footnotes when the literary history of this period is written. Mitchell's series of uncompleted stories are poor examples of the individual genres in which they purport to be set; the central story is simply pretentious, unreadable drivel ripped off from many other writers (cf Russell Hoban) who at least did it better. Characterisation is shallow and the ideas are all second hand. In none of the stories does Mitchell convince the reader that there is more than a single author trying on funny voices in each story, like a comedian doing impressions. Collecting a bunch of incomplete, non sequitur stories into a single book does not make them a novel. Oh yes, there was a single theme: the strong prey on the weak. How original. There are a lot of bad books out there and when I read one I usually just express displeasure and move on. I rarely hate a book with a vengeance the way I do this one. I don't know why - maybe it's a reaction to all the positive reviews and the many readers and critics (such as the otherwise great Antonia Byatt) who have been conned. If I were a publisher I would have rejected Cloud Atlas for publication and suggested to Mitchell that he try some other line of work. view post


posted 15 Mar 2006, 19:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


Aspect-Emperor of What? posted 26 Mar 2006, 23:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtDELETED by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 03 Apr 2006, 07:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionStarring &quot;Insert Actor Here&quot; as Kelhuss! by Anonymous, Subdidact

So far I've been really disappointed with the consideration taken into account here. I do, however, like most of gierra's suggestions and a few of the others. I haven't been on the forums lately, but everyone at work finished [i:s7bserqj]Thousandfold[/i:s7bserqj] before me and we've been talking about pop actors who could possibly fill the roles. Obviously, as here, Kellhus had us for a loss, but I really dig the idea of Jim Caviezal. This may not be up to everyone's expectations, but the things we took into account is screen time, the challenge of the role to the actor, both the quality of the actor and their physical appearance (within reason), age, and whether they've been typecast a bit for these roles in previous films. (Ethnicity is a bit trickier as we've had some debate as to the actual appearance of the races inhabiting the different regions of the Three Seas.) So I apologise, as all of these actors are Caucasian. It's the plight of choosing from Hollywood stars. Let's see what we came up with so far: [img:s7bserqj]http://www.futurestyle.org/archives/images/c/caviezel-Jim.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Anasûrimbor Kellhus[/b:s7bserqj] Jim Caviezel : He would need to be buffed up, blonde, lighter-skinned, taller; his face is calm, elegant, and his acting is superb, he pulled of a introspection well in [i:s7bserqj]The Thin Red Line[/i:s7bserqj] and could carry the sort of calm knowledge and perfection necessary [img:s7bserqj]http://homepage1.nifty.com/tarayashiki/cine/img/cine0023/top.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Drusas Achamian[/b:s7bserqj] Philip Seymour Hoffman : Once we thought of him, it just became that [i:s7bserqj]obvious[/i:s7bserqj] [img:s7bserqj]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/jv/5/51/Monica_Bellucci-Maria_Magdalena.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Esmenet[/b:s7bserqj] Monica Bellucci : Again, another obvious choice (to us, at least); her age, her timeless beauty, everything about her would scream Esmie; though, Catherine Zeta-Jones would also work [img:s7bserqj]http://www.estoeshollywood.com/images/Pasados%20articulos/christian%20bale20.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Cnaiür[/b:s7bserqj] Christian Bale : With [i:s7bserqj]major[/i:s7bserqj] buffing up, I also like the idea of Wes Studi, however he may be too old (b. 1947), whereas Cnaiür is in his thirties, Bale could pull off the madness necessary — just larger, darker skinned, longer hair, and really dirty: dirty and scarred more than enough to rid any semblance of his pretty self; of course, Cnaiür — like Kellhus — is a really tough one to choose, so feel free to disagree (I also thought of Jason Patric)… [img:s7bserqj]http://www.superiorpics.com/hs/keira_knightley/main1.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Serwë[/b:s7bserqj] Any tart in Hollywood : Honestly, this is not a challenging role, it could be claimed by any up-and-coming actress in Hollywood, who fit the role of young, nubile, sexual, childlike, et cetera; albeit a necessary character, Serwë is a catalyst for events, not a trasngressor; though Milla Jovovich doesn't strike me as her, so for argument's sake I choose Keira Knightley [img:s7bserqj]http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/personalidades/atores/barry-pepper/barry-pepper04.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Ikurei Conphas[/b:s7bserqj] Barry Pepper : Again, I liked that Pepper was mentioned earlier, but I believe he'd make a much better Proyas; his sculpted features have elements of intellect and femininity (pious spirituality, I see there), as well as the warrior [img:s7bserqj]http://images.zap2it.com/20050211/adrienbrody_thejacket_240_002.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Proyas[/b:s7bserqj] Adrien Brody : This one is up for debate, and you couldn't get Brody for this role anyhow, he's an Oscar-winner, but he would do an excellent, if brief, job with it [img:s7bserqj]http://img2.stopklatka.pl/filmowcy/01900/01995/0.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Xinemus[/b:s7bserqj] John C. Reilly : As it's mentioned that Akka and Zin share in semblance, Reilly is not only an excellent actor and a bit weathered, but does hold a resemblance to Hoffman; Ray Liotta would also be kind of cool in this role? [img:s7bserqj]http://www.darkarts.hu/characters/oldman/oldman1.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Ikurei Xerius[/b:s7bserqj] Gary Oldman : I like the mention of Oldman as Nautzera earlier, but that is a smaller role and I think Xerius would be a much more satisfying and challenging role for Oldman — and he has the talent to pull it off, as the Emperor would be a difficult character to do well; he's also already played a sorcerer before [img:s7bserqj]http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/images/hopper.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Nautzera[/b:s7bserqj] Dennis Hopper : Having less "screen time" than, say, Eleäzaras, couldn't warrant an A-scale pop actor, but this could work — as long as the director kept his performance subdued, as Hopper seems to ignite the screen with a sort of weird energy, he'd have to keep it subtle [img:s7bserqj]http://film.onet.pl/_i/plotki/duze/m/mickey_rourke_1.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Eleäzaras[/b:s7bserqj] Mickey Rourke : Yes, you read that right; I'm all about seeing a few people tackling different roles and I think Rourke is super-talented, so not to typecast him to a warrior's role, though he would have perhaps made a great Cnaiür in a different age and time [img:s7bserqj]http://www.filmstew.com/Users/Features/11216/jv_glover.jpg[/img:s7bserqj] [b:s7bserqj]Iyokus[/b:s7bserqj] Crispin Glover : [i:s7bserqj]Oh yeah…[/i:s7bserqj] view post


posted 10 Apr 2006, 22:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Aspect Emperor, Inrithism, Fanimry, and the Schools by Anonymous, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 13 Apr 2006, 09:04 in Literature DiscussionFavorite books/series by Anonymous, Subdidact

i'm truly amazed nobody (i must've missed it:) mentioned Neal Stephenson, his The Diamond Age is really thoughtprovokingly good. Also Roger Zelazny; the Amber-series and Lord of Light. and Tad Williams: the Otherland series (although his ending is nearly as bad as King's) for space adventure en gore Simon Green's Deathstalker series are a lot of fun. his ending is worse than King's though. .Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot. ~ Groucho Marx view post


posted 01 May 2006, 02:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by DELETED, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 27 May 2006, 14:05 in Book ClubA Game of Thrones book club discussion open by Vox, Subdidact

When I read A Game of Thrones, I didn't think it was all that great. Perhaps it was because of all the hype that I had heard people giving Martin before I went out and bought it - I started with artificially high expectations. What I read then left me a little disappointed. A secondary reason could have been that I had just finished reading Midnight Tides by Steven Erikson (my favourite). Compared to Erikson, I felt that the scope of A Game of Thrones was far narrower, although of course as a first book it would not do to make it too broad. I quite liked the parallels I could draw between Westeros and Medieval England: from the War of the Roses to the Boy King on the throne, there was a counterpart in Martin's world to the reality in ours. On the cover of the UK MMPB, which I got, there was a quote: "Characters so venomous they could eat the Borgias". This was a very accurate assessment in my opinion, as I found several instances where a character that I assumed the reader was meant to sympathize with showed a nasty streak (Catelyn, for example). I found this quite refreshing: Martin seems unafraid to malign any of his creations. My major gripe with A Game of Thrones was the unoriginality of the characters. I'm sure people who haven't read this book have seen the following character types before: The tomboy who learns how to fight The siblings who are opposites The unfortunate who has to adapt to life in a foriegn culture The honest and naive man in politics The boy who struggles against his the circumstances of his birth The spymaster The duplicitous politician The king in the Henry VIII mold. These categories fit nearly everyone in A Game of Thrones, marring my appreciation of Martin's characterisation. As a result, the character I liked the most was Sandor Clegane, who didn't quite fit the stereotypes presented above. It may be a minor problem, but I also felt that the novel was focused a bit too tightly on the nobility: we don't get to see the repercusssions of the power struggles at the top of the feudal pyramid upon those on the bottom. I thought that might have helped the reader empathize with the story better. Vox PS. I posted something similar on the Malazan Board, entitled "So what's all the fuss about GRRM". view post


Oh, mystar... posted 05 Jun 2006, 16:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

héhéhé. I recently created a false account on terry goodkind's forum and used it to pm mystar to congradulate him on his crusade against the intelligent part of the world (in different wording), just to see what reaction I'd get in return. He didn't let me down: [quote:2bp6kkkr] Thank you for your kind words. Just remember these people are decidedly not open to seeing truth, thye just want to belittle and ridicule..."school yard Bullies". With such close minds these people will not have any understanding. My point in even responding at all [at the Mazalan forums] was to ferret out a troll, who poses here and on my site www.terrygoodkind.net and to simply stir the pot, showing them that we know who there are and it is honestly a simple handful. They switch back and forth from board to board becasue they feel it is funny. Yet they cannot stand for any fan to "be" just that a fan. What we see here are a few people that have taken it more than a step further and shown the true callowness of their character. They show us the void of their existence that they are not simply "poking fun" but rather are unmasked by Goodkind so they have no choice but to run around attacking, doing their best to try and belittle anyone who reads Goodkind's work. This kind of behavior not only suggest that Goodkind has more than struck a nerve but that it has shown the fact that they are just a bunch of bully’s. These are the same kinds of antagonistic and belligerent children who find what they think is a target and attack. Now these people show their true character not just by attacking the material, but also the people who offer up good words or simply they liked the series. Someone offers up "I liked the series" and off they go attacking this person, then puking forth some week point about "he's arrogant", or "His prose" is really bad" or even "how can anyone read him". Week indeed. To go to the lengths to make sure they hit as many boards as possible Adam et al. show themselves to be devoid of character. SO someone likes Goodkind? So what? Some have found that within Goodkind's novels, is something more than just a story. They see a deeper meaning. They see a story of strength and of courage. Most see a story about the struggle with life and from it they find hope!. They find strength! and they find courage! Many simply find a good story to entertain them. But the former...yes these are what scare people like Adam here...over zealous people who hate that anyone read Goodkind, then cannot let it go with out doing the best to drag down, mutilate and or simply pummel these people to death. And for what? Simply this, they have shown why, they cannot stand that someone has found something they either could not, and/or that someone could rise above and be something better. They rail that Goodkind an unknown has violated their sacred world with things like, Truth, Integrity, Ethics and a hero who refuses to bow to the enemy even to save his own skin. One may not like the way Goodkind writes. So what? That simply doesn't cause such shallow people to behave in a manor like these zealots do. One may not care for the characters in Goodkind’s story. So what? Then move along... Unless as I stated, Goodkind has exposed the true nature of these sour people causing such a caustic behavior. One may well feel Goodkind is an over paid nar-do-well. Again so what? The truth is in the fact that Goodkind started with a story they read and liked (now a few will try and spew that they never liked them). Then as time and story progressed, they found themselves not liking they story line offering up such things as "too preachy", "to much philosophy", "he needs to kill of a main character" or such things. In short...they didn't like the track the story was taking. The story is Goodkind’s to tell, not theirs, and that rankles them to no end. They cannot get at Goodkind, so the next target is to try and ridicule and berate those whom they can get to...his fans. Shallow indeed. No doubt now will ensue their rage and tirade of vitriolic denials, attempting to twist it around with all kinds of trenchant comments and rebuffs... But, the cat is out of the bag and they have been exposed. The truth behind their mordent refrains is all too clear.[/quote:2bp6kkkr] Honestly, you can't make this up. :roll: The reason I used this board to share this (opposed to, say, mazalan) is because I don't have to log in in order to post, and because I don't participate on forums. It's too much fun to look at it from a distance. Using the guest profile is abusing the system, and perhaps some psychiatrists may detect insecurity in this; perhaps a tendency towards asocial-behaviour -they are 100% correct-, but hey, at least the admins don't have to delete my account here. :) Mystar, if you read this: you're free to delete that account. And don't bother spamming me or sending me hate mail: it was a throwaway email adress I plan never to use again. view post


posted 06 Jun 2006, 05:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

That is the exact tirade he uses over at the Chronicles site. lol http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum ... ind-4.html As I stated on that thread, I would really like to meet the man that seems to create fans like that. view post


posted 11 Jun 2006, 13:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

mystar deserves to burn in a fiery hell for all eternity and have his balls picked like little cherries by the whore of fate after which she eats them kinda like what happens in goodkind's perverse and fluffy books. view post


Re: Oh, mystar... posted 13 Jun 2006, 04:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

[quote="Anonymous":2qhq3bib]héhéhé. I recently created a false account on terry goodkind's forum and used it to pm mystar to congradulate him on his crusade against the intelligent part of the world (in different wording), just to see what reaction I'd get in return. He didn't let me down: [quote:2qhq3bib] Thank you for your kind words. Just remember these people are decidedly not open to seeing truth, thye just want to belittle and ridicule..."school yard Bullies". With such close minds these people will not have any understanding. My point in even responding at all [at the Mazalan forums] was to ferret out a troll, who poses here and on my site www.terrygoodkind.net and to simply stir the pot, showing them that we know who there are and it is honestly a simple handful. They switch back and forth from board to board becasue they feel it is funny. Yet they cannot stand for any fan to "be" just that a fan. What we see here are a few people that have taken it more than a step further and shown the true callowness of their character. They show us the void of their existence that they are not simply "poking fun" but rather are unmasked by Goodkind so they have no choice but to run around attacking, doing their best to try and belittle anyone who reads Goodkind's work. This kind of behavior not only suggest that Goodkind has more than struck a nerve but that it has shown the fact that they are just a bunch of bully’s. These are the same kinds of antagonistic and belligerent children who find what they think is a target and attack. Now these people show their true character not just by attacking the material, but also the people who offer up good words or simply they liked the series. Someone offers up "I liked the series" and off they go attacking this person, then puking forth some week point about "he's arrogant", or "His prose" is really bad" or even "how can anyone read him". Week indeed. To go to the lengths to make sure they hit as many boards as possible Adam et al. show themselves to be devoid of character. SO someone likes Goodkind? So what? Some have found that within Goodkind's novels, is something more than just a story. They see a deeper meaning. They see a story of strength and of courage. Most see a story about the struggle with life and from it they find hope!. They find strength! and they find courage! Many simply find a good story to entertain them. But the former...yes these are what scare people like Adam here...over zealous people who hate that anyone read Goodkind, then cannot let it go with out doing the best to drag down, mutilate and or simply pummel these people to death. And for what? Simply this, they have shown why, they cannot stand that someone has found something they either could not, and/or that someone could rise above and be something better. They rail that Goodkind an unknown has violated their sacred world with things like, Truth, Integrity, Ethics and a hero who refuses to bow to the enemy even to save his own skin. One may not like the way Goodkind writes. So what? That simply doesn't cause such shallow people to behave in a manor like these zealots do. One may not care for the characters in Goodkind’s story. So what? Then move along... Unless as I stated, Goodkind has exposed the true nature of these sour people causing such a caustic behavior. One may well feel Goodkind is an over paid nar-do-well. Again so what? The truth is in the fact that Goodkind started with a story they read and liked (now a few will try and spew that they never liked them). Then as time and story progressed, they found themselves not liking they story line offering up such things as "too preachy", "to much philosophy", "he needs to kill of a main character" or such things. In short...they didn't like the track the story was taking. The story is Goodkind’s to tell, not theirs, and that rankles them to no end. They cannot get at Goodkind, so the next target is to try and ridicule and berate those whom they can get to...his fans. Shallow indeed. No doubt now will ensue their rage and tirade of vitriolic denials, attempting to twist it around with all kinds of trenchant comments and rebuffs... But, the cat is out of the bag and they have been exposed. The truth behind their mordent refrains is all too clear.[/quote:2qhq3bib] Honestly, you can't make this up. :roll: The reason I used this board to share this (opposed to, say, mazalan) is because I don't have to log in in order to post, and because I don't participate on forums. It's too much fun to look at it from a distance. Using the guest profile is abusing the system, and perhaps some psychiatrists may detect insecurity in this; perhaps a tendency towards asocial-behaviour -they are 100% correct-, but hey, at least the admins don't have to delete my account here. :) Mystar, if you read this: you're free to delete that account. And don't bother spamming me or sending me hate mail: it was a throwaway email adress I plan never to use again.[/quote:2qhq3bib] :lol: What you didn't think I knew who you were to start with? Please, you were rather transparent with your inane leading questions. Thus the use of Adam's name, but I digress... The truth of the matter is, Goodkind is selling more and more. His backlist has to date some more than 60 million. Don't like it...sorry but your petty tirades do more to cause people to take notice and read Goodkind than cause people to turn away. While some may not care for his style, personality or "prose", you simply cannot argue with the fact that Goodkind is a success. Ten million for his last three books, which includes the soon to be released "Phantom" but not book number 11 (untitled). Book number 11 was sold for an undisclosed amount over and above the ten million figure. Please note that with book number 11...the "current" story arc will close. That does not mean the end of the world or characters Goodkind has created, just the current story arc. While I've not yet read anything Bakker has written, I doubt I shall. With people like you who are so lacking a life you have nothing better to do what to spout off your petty and trite "we can't stand Goodkind because....." and then attempting to drag other writers like Bakker into your delusion is well... just sad. I've read Bakkers comments... perhaps you missed the point where Bakker [i:2qhq3bib]didn't[/i:2qhq3bib] join in the bashing fest, just made a comment with regard to it, the same with GRRM. From what I read both seem to be well spoken people, and seemingly above your petty childish school yard bullying. To wit, just because someone doesn't join in and add his/her own vitriol to the fray (and lets be honest here, it is not Goodkind's fan who are the acidic ones), doesn't mean that they agree, just that they are kind enough to not embarrass you by telling what gits you are. "burn in hell".... sorry I think not.... view post


posted 13 Jun 2006, 04:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

[quote="Anonymous":1vtsuvh6]That is the exact tirade he uses over at the Chronicles site. lol http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum ... ind-4.html As I stated on that thread, I would really like to meet the man that seems to create fans like that.[/quote:1vtsuvh6] I can arrange that...but then you would decline, as it would force you to realize that these petty buffoons have no idea what they are talking about then having maligned Goodkind as an arrogant egomaniac with no prose.…. No that would be to great a blow to find out that what you are reading is only conjecture by these turgid and antagonistic thugs. You don’t like him? So what? Dude, not everyone is going to like everything or every one out there. So instead of acting like civilized adults, mature “rational” thinking people…you go off On some type of “road rage” type of action….lol… bashing the hell outta something you refuse to see some truths in… [i:1vtsuvh6]Dude[/i:1vtsuvh6] that says a lot about the personalities….er.. or I meant to say, lack there of…., of the people doing that kind of thing. But like I said, I could arrange that... view post


posted 13 Jun 2006, 16:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="mystar":20l80f6s][quote="Anonymous":20l80f6s]That is the exact tirade he uses over at the Chronicles site. lol http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum ... ind-4.html As I stated on that thread, I would really like to meet the man that seems to create fans like that.[/quote:20l80f6s] I can arrange that...but then you would decline, as it would force you to realize that these petty buffoons have no idea what they are talking about then having maligned Goodkind as an arrogant egomaniac with no prose.…. No that would be to great a blow to find out that what you are reading is only conjecture by these turgid and antagonistic thugs. You don’t like him? So what? Dude, not everyone is going to like everything or every one out there. So instead of acting like civilized adults, mature “rational” thinking people…you go off On some type of “road rage” type of action….lol… bashing the hell outta something you refuse to see some truths in… [i:20l80f6s]Dude[/i:20l80f6s] that says a lot about the personalities….er.. or I meant to say, lack there of…., of the people doing that kind of thing. But like I said, I could arrange that...[/quote:20l80f6s] Just thought I'd respond to this. I don't know Goodkind personally, and I have never made any comments that suggest I do. I have made fun of a few comments he has made that were questionable IMO, but that's it. None of the people that "malign" Goodkind know the man either, so I take their opinions with a grain of salt. If anything, I'm more of a casual observer of the whole Goodkind phenomenon that seems to be occurring right now. As I stated in that thread, I enjoyed his first two books. Hell, I even own them, but I didn't care for some of the following books, which is why I haven't read anything by him recently. One more thing. I have never went on a "road rage type of action" in regards to Goodkind. And, yes, I would like to meet the man, along with several other authors, including Mr. Bakker. :) view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 04:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

[quote="Aldarion":3pjwdmz9]It's very surreal seeing a post I started two years ago being revived in such a manner. Very surreal indeed. But time to have a bit of 'fun' with this, I suppose... The first rule of the Bon Ton Society is that you don't mention your money. It could be 10 million dollars or 10 million 1923 Reichmarks for all I care, but the money means nothing. Hell, [i:3pjwdmz9]Titanic[/i:3pjwdmz9] made over a billion dollars worldwide, yet who goes around praising [i:3pjwdmz9]that[/i:3pjwdmz9]? So there's a lot of people who enjoy Goodkind's stuff. Fine. There's millions more that enjoy Scheiße porn. More power to them. Scratch the surface deep enough and there are fans of furry bondage, child beating/rape, and Satanism, just to name a few. But people enjoy these activities. Others do not. Cajoling is a time-honored way of curbing certain behaviors. Some like to join in, others hate it. Some cheer for the guys in the white hats, others for those in black. Defending someone is okay in certain situations, strange to bad in others. So what if people mock and deride Goodkind? [color=yellow:3pjwdmz9] I could care less about what people do or do not mock, Goodkind included. I simply point out your impotence and lack of character) [/color:3pjwdmz9]I mock and deride N'Sync and the Backdoor(err, Backstreet) Boys. But I don't see fanatics of theirs logging on to multiple sites just to argue with them. At a certain point, just shrug and [b:3pjwdmz9]let it go[/b:3pjwdmz9]. So what if people get their jollies from ridiculing the writing and ideas of Goodkind? How does that affect [i:3pjwdmz9]you[/i:3pjwdmz9], how does it keep [i:3pjwdmz9]you[/i:3pjwdmz9] from enjoying his works? [color=yellow:3pjwdmz9] I enjoy his works just fine. The reality is simple. Good-natured fun, ribbing and all 'round joking is great. Seems you can dish, but like 92% of all bullies, can't take it. I have simply pointed out that there is a far cry from your actions and good-natured ribbing. Like it or not, many people out there have found something that speaks to them through Goodkind’s works. Some have found that they can grasp the truths and be better people, believe in themselves again, or some for the first time! Some people have had such horrific lives and through reading the SOD series, have said, I can have be what I want to become, and I am worth respect. Even to the point as Adam pointed out (that hadda hurt...did it leave a mark Adam?), some who were on the brink of suicide have turned their lives around. What you do is to mock them, much in the manor of the sad little boys in Lord of the Fly’s who stoned the one who they saw as different. Simply because you feel like pointing out what "you" feel are some shortcomings in Goodkind’s works. You read a couple of partial interviews, where Goodkind was responding to a poster who had earlier made a few insipid comments about how we "Americans" should be bombed out of existence and how Freedom is a lie. You can have all the fun you wish, but what you did/do is not just make fun of, but actually mock each person who has become a better person for what ever reason they choose to acknowledge having read Goodkind. That is character assassination. [/color:3pjwdmz9] All this crossboard posting does is paint a big target on your back, [color=yellow:3pjwdmz9] ahhhh o...k.. so then you admit you have a big target on your back. See you guys are the ones who have been doing the cross board posting/bashing for years. I pop in ...in what? two months and ask a few question, make a few comments? Then in your fanatic fervor, try and pin that label on me?....lol.. dude wake up and look in the mirror[/color:3pjwdmz9], allowing for the derisive people to go 'oh look, mystar is over at [so-and-so], what a moron!'. [color=yellow:3pjwdmz9] uhm, calling me a moron is like the pot calling the kettle black. As stated you are the ones who have been doing this for some time, including trying to post factitious interviews and mis-information in your petty little tirade at attacking Goodkind. Calling me a moron has no effect on me. I know where I've come from to be where I am today. I know the poverty and the homeless life I came out of as a young man to become a successful businessman. dude, you have no idea who I am. When as a young homeless man, you have to beg for food, work for a meal, swallow your pride to get food...lol... you would soon learn petty little names have no meaning. Only small people like you use them in a lame attempt to cause harm because deep within your psyche, you know they would hurt your feeling, that's why you use them. They fall off me as the rain slues off the pavement.[/color:3pjwdmz9] What's next? Are you going to come to other sites that you've yet to post at, so you can defend Goodkind/attack the mockers? Why not head to wotmania? I mean I'm an Admin there for its Other Fantasy section and I make the occasional post about the statements Goodkind has made. Or why not head to the Other Authors section of Neil Gaiman's official site, because some there in the past have made comments about Goodkind's work? I mean, you managed to come here because of [i:3pjwdmz9]one[/i:3pjwdmz9] person, and Bakker isn't as much (yet) of a household name as a Robert Jordan or Neil Gaiman. Why go to such trouble?[color= you should be asking yourself [i[that[/i] very question, yet you are too full of yourself to see.[/color] Just let the mockers have their fun and you have yours over at your site. Maybe the twain don't need to meet. It probably would be for the best that way.[color= yet you seem to feed on making it your mission to spread this kind of garbage everywhere, yet when finally rebuffed, you are blind to your actions. And you actually think you have what it takes to help troubles youth? I weep for these poor young boys whose life’s you are screwing up[/color][/quote:3pjwdmz9] larry larry larry... et al. dude, I'm not attacking anyone. That's been your petty little job. But I am and have been pointing out that having honor and respect IS something you probably are capable of, I mean I see you offering up a little respect here and there, unless its just brown nosing/ass-kissing to gain acceptance of an up an coming author who shows some promise. The point is even if you feel someone is beneath you, the true stature and character of a man is that he offer up some respect to his fellow man. Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring and integrity, they think of you. -H. Jackson Brown, Jr. view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 14:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

[quote="Aldarion":tnqiesi5]Aww...you know my name! How sweet! :P As for the rest, I post here about a wide variety of things. I post at Westeros over many other things, mostly sports-related these days. I even post ECW wrestling reviews on occasion. Goodkind doesn't occupy my time. I post as I please. But I believe you were missing my point - I know some people have felt better reading Goodkind. More power to them. I still personally find his fondness for Objectivism for it to be repugnant, but that's just me. I don't lose sweat over it. As for the dishing/taking it out, I shrug at it. Those who often counter with such things often (not always, but often) have other issues when they have to compare themselves to others. It is a weakness of a great many of us. But instead of sniping back and forth, I have a better idea, if you're game. Since you claim to be standing up for Goodkind and against those who are mocking him, I invite you to register over at wotmania and to post a defense post over at our Other Fantasy section. Only request would be no ad hominems or references to specific people, just a statement as to why Goodkind might need to be re-evaluated. I won't mock, edit, delete, close the thread or anything if it stays civil. I won't even reply, just only will allow a dialogue between you and others, if you're game. The ad hominems above to me I'll just ignore, as I believe they were spoken more out of a general irritation rather than in reaction to sustained contact between the two of us. I don't know you, you don't know me. Fair enough. I just simply disagree quite strongly with the thrust behind Goodkind's ideology and I will state it, maybe even in occasional derisive terms, just as you and others were derisive in your disagreements with Ilya's letter last year about Goodkind's comments regarding Canada ;) But the offer stands on the post.[/quote:tnqiesi5] I think not. BUT you are welcome to come to .net, I've no illusions as to the kind of creature exist there and their lack of character in being civil or allowing a civil discussion. BUT why I know you will refuse my request is that you have just proven my point. You have just shown yourself incapable of a civil discussion with out resorting to petty "ad-hominems" and adding "derisive” flames. On my board, we have respect and do not allow such behavior, just as you would not allow such behavior out of the children you allegedly work with. The point being, I do not serve a double standard. We actually require selfrestraint and respect. Something you appear not to be familure with. view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 15:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

One point I wanted to make, but with my three year old crawling up into my lap saying "daddy I wanna hold you", I was forced to stop posting, was this. ALL life is a choice. Whatever the given event or situation we have a choice. We can react, which would be a negative, or we can respond, which would be a positive. If you took something and you had a "reaction" your body is fighting it and you will have negative repercussions. If say, you are ill and you take some medicine and you body "responds" to it, that means you are healing and will be better. The same holds true in all aspect of your life. I choose to embrace the positive aspects and to value them. You have been choosing to deride people for their choice of valuing something that they find soils and comfort in. Not to mention find a worthwhile piece of literature. The human condition is wont for people who have no respect for anything, saying that "its my right to be or act such, even in demeaning others" and that is true it is their right. But what does that say about the person? What indeed does it offer up that a person only shows respect to someone who they think will benefit them and not the rest? We as a human race have long forgotten the practice of proper respect. This is one reason the human race suffers as we do now. I simply choose to see positive aspects that Goodkind books are about heroes that fight for moral and ethical values. I see the fact that heroes can over come with out being corrupted, or laying their values down even as a sacrifice to the evil that would kill them. While some may feel Goodkind lacks so called "prose" or that some may find his characters "straw men", that is simply because they refuse to see with eyes that choose to see the positive aspects and the moral message contained with in. The forum suggests that Goodkind focuses on rape always on rape. Yet these same people seem to be over looking the truth of the matter. Rape is something that sadly occurs everywhere. That does not make it ok, just that Goodkind has pointed out it is blight on the Human Race. It is used as a tool. I choose to see the inference and choose to respond by making people aware that there is help that this action is abhorrent and can be stopped. By ridiculing people for reading or even liking Goodkind, you are effectively drawing a line in the sand telling people that to read Goodkind is something only fools should do, Further that to not only read Goodkind but gain any kind of values from it/him is simply not possible. Perhaps you choose to remain blind to your own actions and the simply fact that like a pebble in a pond, your actions effect others. Choosing to have positive responses does not mean that you have to like the series, just that you are aware that your actions change lives, even if you don't think so. ok... <Chicken Little> who we talking 'bout?</> view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 15:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Xray the Enforcer":wp1bpyqn][quote="mystar":wp1bpyqn] I think not. [/quote:wp1bpyqn] "Bravely running away, away" FTW![/quote:wp1bpyqn] lol I expected as much from you. A wise man doesn't enter the den full of wolves. I am runing away from nothing. I am offering up a place where mutual respect and honor are shown. Not a place full of rabid wolves. I may be a risk taker, but I'm not a fool. view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 16:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by mystar, Subdidact

[quote="Xray the Enforcer":2p4379t2][quote="Anonymous":2p4379t2] lol I expected as much from you. [/quote:2p4379t2] You need a better put-down. The 1,500th time I see it, it just doesn't sting as much as the first.[/quote:2p4379t2] It was not a put down, but feel free to take it anyway you wish. I usually get what I expect, so I didn't set my expetations to high, knowing who I am dealing with. view post


posted 15 Jun 2006, 02:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Aldarion":2libp2ys][quote="mystar":2libp2ys] I think not. BUT you are welcome to come to .net, I've no illusions as to the kind of creature exist there and their lack of character in being civil or allowing a civil discussion. BUT why I know you will refuse my request is that you have just proven my point. You have just shown yourself incapable of a civil discussion with out resorting to petty "ad-hominems" and adding "derisive” flames. On my board, we have respect and do not allow such behavior, just as you would not allow such behavior out of the children you allegedly work with. The point being, I do not serve a double standard. We actually require selfrestraint and respect. Something you appear not to be familure with.[/quote:2libp2ys] Why should I come to a forum of fans when I'm not a fan of the guy's work? To say that I find his ideology repugnant, his writing stilted and spotty, his characters more like archetypes than anything truly resembling flesh-and-blood people? That's quite a bit different from being offered the opportunity to state a defense to those who are skeptical AND those who are fans of his works (we do have those over there at wotmania), or if defense is too maligned of a word, then a persuasive piece as to why Goodkind is being maligned by people, including myself. I have no problems with staying out and letting you post your piece and see if a dialogue can be created. I don't need people agreeing with me, nor do I need them disagreeing with me. I do both with close friends of mine and the dialogue improves matters more than long-distance snipage. But if given an adequate reason to post at your site, I might do it, even if some might want to rip into my arguments. That's okay. I've walked into worse situations before. But I just need an explanation as to why I should post something negative about the author at a fansite. I choose to leave fans their respectful love of their author because it is not the time nor place to attack. And as for respect, it may or may not surprise you to know that when I heard about Goodkind's recent surgery that I made a post about it that was quite respectful, as my mother had a similar surgery 3 years ago. I believe my words were along the lines of regardless if I dislike the author's ideas or writing, I do not wish this on anyone and that a speedy recovery would be made. So there is some respect for the guy from me, believe it or not. I just think his ideas are repugnant, at least the ones expressed in the seven books of his that I did read before I decided that the combination of (to me, needless to say) poor writing/characterizations and Objectivist-influenced ideas was not the sort of tale I wanted to read any further. Tastes vary and we'll just have to disagree on this point (and some others)., that's all.[/quote:2libp2ys] As I stated on my site, we do not engage in "snipage" as you call it, we have reasoned discussions, with out sniping at the poster. Something that is not practiced elsewhere. As for "respect", forgive me, I don't call creating a fitcious interview of Goodkind, with all its perverse commentary, isn't exactly what you are saying " I choose to leave fans their respectful love of their author", not to mention your actions with regard to giog. Parodies are great, but again you have encouraged as well as participated in vulgar and inflammatory posting. And that's yours to do. I simply find that to be involved in such chicanery is demeaning to the person doing it, yet no one can deny that it also has an effect upon the one being ravaged. As I said...Lord of the Fly's... Posting at .net, is a safe environment. It might surprise you to know that not all people there are rabid fans. That's why they are there. We simply believe in fairness, respect and proper decorum for such things. BUT no one is perfect least of all me. Iwas with the Goodkind's for this ordeal. And while Terry was incapacitated it was my job to help them out. Open heart surgery is never a good thing. Many fan's are of like sentiment and wish him well, but again you will understand that it is with raised eyebrows and a skeptical look I have after all your past nastiness and actions. But I'll take you at your words. view post


posted 15 Jun 2006, 12:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by O, Subdidact

You talk about whats better for the whole world at large yet you are the one who uncaringling wanders across the web unleashing snide remarks and victimizing people who don't agree with your world views or writing parodies of authors that you don't like. For someone who just said a bunch about trying to make things better off, you sure don't show it by your actions. Some of the things you've said were DELIBERATELY intended as insults and meant to hurt people. It is one thing to accidently step on toes, it is another to stomp on someones foot. view post


posted 15 Jun 2006, 14:06 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by add-on, Subdidact

[quote="mystar":li974k7o][color=yellow:li974k7o] I know the poverty and the homeless life I came out of as a young man to become a successful businessman. dude, you have no idea who I am. When as a young homeless man, you have to beg for food, work for a meal, swallow your pride to get food...lol... you would soon learn petty little names have no meaning. Only small people like you use them in a lame attempt to cause harm because deep within your psyche, you know they would hurt your feeling, that's why you use them. They fall off me as the rain slues off the pavement.[/color:li974k7o] [/quote:li974k7o] Just wondering if anybody else was thinking "Bounderby" while reading this... view post


posted 23 Jun 2006, 22:06 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAnasurimbor Maithanet? by DELETED, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 31 Jul 2006, 12:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionAnime by Anonymous, Subdidact

You are right about Berserk. I hope that someday they will finish the series. You are also right about Hellsing. I found the intensity of Berserk to be unmatched by any other anime that I have seen and the humor and intrigue of Hellsing to be very enjoyable view post


posted 14 Aug 2006, 20:08 in General AnnouncementsLooking for new Moderator by Anonymous, Subdidact

Where you get it??? view post


posted 15 Aug 2006, 00:08 in Literature DiscussionDisappointed... by noodles420, Subdidact

ennui though that is true with most of his work some of king's books are more fantasy than anything else the eyes of the dragon is one and the seven books of the darktower series is another if you are interested this series is great it begins with the gun slinge then drawing of the three then the wastelands then wizard and glass then wolves of the calla then song of susannah then the dark tower it is great though some are disappointed with the conclusion i would definitely recomend this book. and on a side note the eyes of the dragon was good too so check them out if you ever get the chance. i am noodles0585 view post


posted 29 Aug 2006, 20:08 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Anonymous, Subdidact

great :)[url=http://hometown.aol.com/valium1valium/:12v2cagm]:)[/url:12v2cagm] view post


Definition of AWESOME posted 12 Sep 2006, 18:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionDefinition of AWESOME by Anonymous, Subdidact

Have you read anything else besides fantasy. I would like to reccomend something that is genuis in its own genre. Its called 20th Century Boys by naoki urasawa, Its just Nuts hence his studio is called studio NUTS. Although you might say "manga thats for kids" heres my respomse this is seinen manga which means it targeted for a older audience. So give it a chance. If you are wondering how you can get it first goto http://www.gotlurk.net and query "20th century boys" on the search bar to get the commands. Then you have to get mirc, I know your saying this is daunting and not worth your effort BUT it is. Scott I just want to see a hit from thats inspired from this manga. so okay, get mirc then with mirc logon to irchighway.net and then reg your logon name goto #help someone will help you there. Then finally join #lurk channel and place the the commands that gotlurk.net told you. #lurk@irchighway.net 1)a] get mirc b] configure DCC to auto accept files i}SHIFT+O--->scroll down--->highlight DCC--->choose auto get file, minimize and RESUME 2) logon to irchighway.net 3) register your logon name 4) join #lurk channel 5) goto http://www.gotlurk.net 6) query "20th century boy" on search bar 7) copy paste command on command line or you can just copy paste this /msg mirrors xdcc send #36 or /ctcp mirrors xdcc send #36 heres a index of 20th century boys Mirrors # 36 2062x 43M 20th_Century_Boys_v01[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 37 1598x 38M 20th_Century_Boys_v02[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 38 1503x 41M 20th_Century_Boys_v03[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 39 1461x 40M 20th_Century_Boys_v04[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 40 1451x 41M 20th_Century_Boys_v05[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 41 1413x 40M 20th_Century_Boys_v06[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 42 1362x 40M 20th_Century_Boys_v07[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 43 1362x 46M 20th_Century_Boys_v08[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 44 1339x 44M 20th_Century_Boys_v09[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 45 1361x 39M 20th_Century_Boys_v10[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 46 1341x 41M 20th_Century_Boys_v11[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 47 1356x 42M 20th_Century_Boys_v12[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 48 1345x 41M 20th_Century_Boys_v13[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 49 1355x 43M 20th_Century_Boys_v14[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 50 1324x 43M 20th_Century_Boys_v15[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 51 1345x 38M 20th_Century_Boys_v16[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 52 1439x 41M 20th_Century_Boys_v17[Hawks-MS].zip Mirrors # 53 1878x 51M 20th_Century_Boys_v18[Manga-Heaven].zip Mirrors # 54 1831x 47M 20th_Century_Boys_v19[Manga-Heaven].zip Mirrors # 55 1587x 51M 20th_Century_Boys_v20[Manga-Heaven].zip Mirrors # 56 340x 51M 20th_Century_Boys_v21[Manga-Heaven].zip Laterz, SPILT_MILK Im just sharing th wealth PS if you know anything thats grounbreaking like The Prince of Nothing Trilology, Catcher in the RYE & The 20th Century Boys Manga tell me view post


posted 17 Oct 2006, 05:10 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Anonymous, Subdidact

Che, along with Raul Castro are responsible for planting the seed of communism in Fidel's ear. After the 1959 revolution, Fidel did not carry out his promises of freedom and democracy for the Cuban people. Camilo Cienfuegos, another prominent Cuban revolutionary l;eader with Che, Raul and Fidel soon found himself in a plane that mysteriously crashed. Che was to Fidel as Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld are to Bush. He whispered in Fidel's ear to carry out totalitarian orders of communism. He was for the majority of the people, but in the process he marginalized the rights of too many. view post


posted 07 Nov 2006, 14:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWater by DELETED, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 12 Nov 2006, 02:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtHoly war goals - Consult and Kellhus by DELETED, Subdidact

DELETED view post


posted 23 Dec 2006, 19:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtNo-God's questions by Anonymous, Subdidact

When I first read the series the questions of Mog-Pharau made me pity him. Even more, I found that I could relate. Which struck me as kind of strange, since I am no World-Breaker by any stretch of the imagination. And as far as I know there was no drastic increase in stillborn infants 20 years ago. Then it struck me (with my own palm, no less. Probably for being so stupid.): Those are the fundamental questions of [b:2gwpo6l1]Man[/b:2gwpo6l1]. We crawl through life asking those selfsame questions. [i:2gwpo6l1]What am I?[/i:2gwpo6l1] [i:2gwpo6l1]What do you see?[/i:2gwpo6l1] So here is my theory: The Consult summoned THE SOUL OF MANKIND (= all the souls of man) and bound them within the Carapace, thus leaving none to animate the newborn. Since the Unconditioned Soul is, according to the Dûnyain, a thing of the future, the Consult could have easily "come before" the SOUL. This could also be the way the No-God controlled the hordes of Sranc, Bashrag and Wracu: By instilling parts of itself, by ensouling the soulless. So maybe Tsuramah didn't control as much as become his own minions, much in the way of the Inrithi God, the One that is Many. And when the Heron Spear shattered the Carapace all the souls were released, rendering the Hordes soulless and enabling the Cycle of Souls once more. view post


Eragon posted 01 Jan 2007, 07:01 in Off-Topic DiscussionEragon by Anonymous, Subdidact

Ok, I just wasted 103 minutes of my life and 9 of my hard-earned dollars on the movie Eragon... I have run across his books in the stores for the past year or so, and every time I pick one up to leaf through it, I get a bad taste in my mouth, and so have avoided buying any of them... I think it is the names he uses... It feels like he is ripping off names from authors who are actually good... Anyway, my mind is now firmly made up that I will not be buying any of his books... Arg!!! That movie just made me mad. Should've known that a 19 year old kid couldn't be anything more than a try-hard paint-by-numbers wannabe hack! The kid just stole good parts of other people's books and mushed them together! Now, the point of my whole post was to issue a big THANK YOU to Scott Bakker for writing such a refreshing and unique series of novels, actually worthy of the word 'novel'... The time, background knowledge, and research that you obviously put into your work definitely comes through in the reading... It is perhaps bad works of fiction like the Eragon series that makes one appreciate the good writing that is out there... I anxiously and eagerly await the arrival of 'The Aspect-Emperor' story arc... So, in summary, save yourself $9 and don't go see Eragon... I felt embarassed for so many people while watching it, not the least of which were Jeremy Irons, and my fellow canuck Avril Lavigne, who got suckered into being involved in this movie... I wish this Eragon kid-author had spent a few more moments pondering the repercussions of his borderline plagiarism in the empty darkness that came before his releasing such an abomination on the world. Hopefully there is a special place reserved for him in Golgotterath... Peace out. PS. Frick - The kid didn't even bother rearranging the letters in the character 'Arya' - He just stole it straight outta GRRM! Garrrrr!!!! Arg!!! And Galbatorix!!! All he did was take Galbadia from Final Fantasy and Vercingetorix, chieftain of the Gauls, and splice their names together... Ok, I'm done now. Thanks for listening. Scott Bakker rules. Happy New Year all... view post


posted 20 Feb 2007, 05:02 in Literature DiscussionEnder's Game by Anonymous, Subdidact

The ender series only gets better after the first book. Personally I think that the "branch" which follows ender gets a little (or a lot) weird towards the end, but stilll it is definatly among my favorite series. I prefered the shadow series. It follows (as you said) Bean, as well as Peter and the rest of the battleschool brats as they return to Earth and proceed to completely upset the global balence of power Also, don't skip ender's shadow just because it is the same plot line told from a different (bean's) perspective. It adds so much to Ender's game. There is a whole substory which emerges in ender's shadow that you only say hints of in Ender's game don't skip these books view post


posted 20 Feb 2007, 06:02 in Literature Discussionr.a. salvatore's war of the spider queen series by Anonymous, Subdidact

I read them all (The spiderqueen and the Drizzt books) when I was younger all in all I found them to be very competent sword and sorcery works. THey were fun and entertaining, just don't expect something on par with Bakker view post


posted 20 Feb 2007, 06:02 in Literature Discussiondark tower? by Anonymous, Subdidact

The books sort of lose their power towards the end. (as in the last 2 or three books) Don't get me wrong it's still King, so it's still readable, but they lost the dream-like, surreal, quality that was so strong in "The Gunslinger". I think King jsut added to much detail in the later books, he lost sight of the simplistic "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed" storyline. That said, I still feel that the Gunslinger is, in its own unique way, one of the best books I have ever read. Just be ready for some serious weirdness towards the end of the series view post


posted 20 Feb 2007, 06:02 in ReviewsReview of Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman by Anonymous, Subdidact

an "alice in wonderland" might be closer to the truth, But I agree it is one of his best works to date (Though Good Omens was great in it's own right as well) view post


posted 21 Feb 2007, 04:02 in Literature DiscussionEnder's Game by Anonymous, Subdidact

they are completely seperate.... save for perhaps a few scattered mentions of whats going on on earth etc. so pick whichever series you want to read first the bean series focuses on military tactics and political run around as Peter tries to take over the earth... bean has to decide if he should help him or not the Ender series focuses on a new race of aliens that is discovered... it asks philosophical questions about what constitutes sentience and the right for all species to live both are good, its really a matter of taste view post


Wanna vote in this year's Awards? posted 12 Jun 2007, 08:06 in Literature DiscussionWanna vote in this year's Awards? by Anonymous, Subdidact

Hi A/all, I've managed to secure an interview with China, does anyone have any questions that they would like asked of this author? If so let me know here and I'll do my best to include them. All the best Gareth_________________Samwise Gamgee Prayer For what Frodo's is about to recieve may his ring make him truly thankful! [url=http://www.jedicombat.com/mmorpg-newaccount.php:1q79f4el][img:1q79f4el]http://www.jedicombat.com/zhora.jpg[/img:1q79f4el][/url:1q79f4el] view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.