If you want to read stream of consciousness, try Joyce's Portrait of the Artist, or, if you really want to give your head a spin, Ulysses.
There seems to be a misconception about stream of consciousness. It isn't about dumping all your thoughts down on paper. Stream of consciousness is a deliberate, conscious technique, used to try and recreate the thought processes of the character, not the author.
There is far more to sexual activity than biological repercussions (pregnancy, STDs, whatever).
Sex is also an emotional activity. A sexual relationship is far more intense than a non-sexual one. Have sex enough, with enough people, and you lose that emotional sensitivity. A number of people I know were very active sexually just after high school, and a few of these, at least, now find that they can't keep a steady relationship up. They become so used to one-night stands and sex for sex's sake that they lose the things necessary for a long term relationship; commitment, the ability to compromise, putting the other first, because all their previous relationships have been only about taking sexual pleasure from the other person. At least one of these friends is really screwed up at the moment due to this.
I'm not going to say sex outside of marriage is right or wrong, but I will say its not just something you do because it feels good and you can.
For my part, I believe that the rules God has layed down for us are based in common sense, not arbitrariness. Don't sleep around all the time, or you nay not be able to appreciate the tenderness of an exclusive relationship.
I think we're really just reiterating the same points now. It seems to me that our opinions divide on what is to be the ultimate authority of a text. You seem to be of the opinion that the author is the only one who can see definitively what the truth of a text means. I think that multiple meanings, some intended by the author, some not, can all be excavated from the same text, and that all are equally valid.
At this point, we should just agree to disagree. Nobody's looking anyways;p
Now you're getting into the methods of analysing a text. Where is meaning constructed? Is the only meaning in a book what the author intended? Or can the reader, through their new perspective, bring new meaning to the text? The current view is both; that meaning is constructed somewhere between the reader and the author.
The other thing anime is in doing things for which there's a shortage of decent actors. For example, I'd love to see what could be done with Ender's Game, but getting enough *decent* child actors to fill out the whole cast of 6 - 11 year old kids (not to mention that it spans about 6 years, and all those kids would be changing physically - kids at that age grow up pretty quick).
But an anime version could overcome these problems.
I didn't say they wanted Saddam in power. But I'm pretty sure they don't particularly want America in Iraq (Wether or not the US just comes in and sets up an Iraqi government; this is yet to be seen).
I think at least a few of these people are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the US (who is, after all, the aggressor, political rhetoric about pre-emptive strikes notwithstanding).
And if you're asking to me to stop making the Iraqis sound noble, I'd ask you to stop slandering them. "crosswired beliefs of Islam", "scared or deceived fools". Despite what is said, people rarely kill for religion. They kill for money, power or revenge, and religious difference is a nice excuse.
The sort of situations you have in the Middle East are like you have in school playgrounds sometimes. Two kids are having a bit of a punch up, and someone tries to come in and get them to break it up. And they both turn on that guy.
Osama, and most middle-eastern terrorists are more irritated at the US sticking their nose into their fight than the person they're fighting with.
Ender talks about what makes him so deadly (and so torn in himself) in the book:
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the wat they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them...I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."
Ender uses unconventional and unexpected tactics, but only as an outgrowth of his understanding of the enemy. He knows the enemy, knows what they expect, therefore he knows what they do not expect. And that's what he uses.
Just because someone sticks to their morals doesn't make them good. It's the morals themselves that have to be judged, not people's tenacity.
Just a few examples:
Hitler knew what he wanted. Among other things, the Jews dead. And he didn't bow to all these other countries saying he was a genocidal maniac, he did what he thought right.
The Worldcom et al CEOs knew what they wanted. Money. And they did whatever they could to get it. The rest of the world called them corrupt thieves, but they bravely ignored them.
Osama Bin Laden knows what he wants. Dead Americans (Well, a liberated homeland, but dead Americans are a nice intermin step). And he did whatever he could to get them.
Determination is not a replacement for moral fortitude.
Or alternatively, to people who don't know who John Locke was, Ender's Game has nothing to do with religion.
Apart from a few names, and the backgrounds of some characters, religion isn't raised as an issue to be dealt with in Ender's Game. The main purpose things like religion, nationality and culture serve in Ender's Game is to act as focii for government suppression.
On the other hand, propoganda certainly is an issue. Most of the Peter/Valentine narrative is a massive propoganda campaign, not to mention all the editing of the war vids, etc.
And I'd agree with the original poster that religion (and a whole host of metaphysical ideas) are discussed more in depth in later books.
Uhhh, it wasn't religion or belief in gods that made Gloriously Bright trace woodgrains, it was the secret little OCD gene their government had inserted into their genetically engineered superbrains to keep em under control.
Actually, what is said in the books is that the humans didn't care if they could live in peace with the buggers or not. Mazer Rackham tells Ender that they don't know if the buggers would live in peace with them; all they know is that the buggers have attacked them before. Ramen, varelse, who cares. They might try and kill us, so let's make sure they can't.
Don't be so naieve. All these things may be immoral, and in violation of the "rules of war", but, rightly or wrongly, these people think they are fighting for their very survival, and the survival of their home. Whats right and wrong goes straight out of the window at that point.
If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
That's why it's so bloody dangerous to back people into a corner. When they've got nothing to lose, they can throw it all against you.
No, the point they made in Ender's Game was that his advantage came in being able to "submerge himself in someone else's will" (ie: empathy). The essential paradox of the perfect general is someone who is able to empathize with his opponent perfectly, but at the same time, is able to destroy them.
** Spoiler Alert **
(Though if you RTFA its already spoilt it)
That's why they had to resort to deception at the end of the novel. Because if Ender had known that he was actually killing the Buggers, his natural empathy, which made him a brilliant general, wouldn't be allow him to kill them.
t's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom
Whoa, boy, slow down a bit there!
More freedom isn't always a good thing. Granted, in the current situation, where liberties are being eroded, its a good thing. But like most things, this depends on a balance. Full, total, 100% freedom results in anarchy. Where everyone is free to do anything (murder, rape, steal), that's anarchy. As soon as you impose a single law, that's restricting freedom.
Freedom is good, but if you want to live in a civil society, restrictions must be placed on the freedom of some, to ensure the freedom of all.
(And by the way, I tested as Centrist. Can you tell?;p)
If the word pedophile for some reason changed its meaning to indicate "upstanding, unblemished, handsome" or whatever, that would be fine.
You missed the point I was making, which is an arbitrarily assigned meaning of a word is pointless. Meaning is defined by common usage, not a dictionary. When common usage changes, the dictionary needs to be updated, the common usage does not need to be suppressed. Language is for communication, not mainting etymological sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon to mutate into the first hIPocracy, no doubt. "Land of the free" and all that.
If you want to read stream of consciousness, try Joyce's Portrait of the Artist, or, if you really want to give your head a spin, Ulysses.
There seems to be a misconception about stream of consciousness. It isn't about dumping all your thoughts down on paper. Stream of consciousness is a deliberate, conscious technique, used to try and recreate the thought processes of the character, not the author.
You actually think the polies read their own email? They'd never see the spam. You'd piss off their secretaries though.
There is far more to sexual activity than biological repercussions (pregnancy, STDs, whatever).
Sex is also an emotional activity. A sexual relationship is far more intense than a non-sexual one. Have sex enough, with enough people, and you lose that emotional sensitivity. A number of people I know were very active sexually just after high school, and a few of these, at least, now find that they can't keep a steady relationship up. They become so used to one-night stands and sex for sex's sake that they lose the things necessary for a long term relationship; commitment, the ability to compromise, putting the other first, because all their previous relationships have been only about taking sexual pleasure from the other person. At least one of these friends is really screwed up at the moment due to this.
I'm not going to say sex outside of marriage is right or wrong, but I will say its not just something you do because it feels good and you can.
For my part, I believe that the rules God has layed down for us are based in common sense, not arbitrariness. Don't sleep around all the time, or you nay not be able to appreciate the tenderness of an exclusive relationship.
I think we're really just reiterating the same points now. It seems to me that our opinions divide on what is to be the ultimate authority of a text. You seem to be of the opinion that the author is the only one who can see definitively what the truth of a text means. I think that multiple meanings, some intended by the author, some not, can all be excavated from the same text, and that all are equally valid.
;p
At this point, we should just agree to disagree. Nobody's looking anyways
Hence "presumably".
Some would say the misunderstandings of many are just as valid as the intent of the author.
In an open source product, they would, presumably, not need to foist key-codes, activation and other sorts of crud to try and control piracy.
Now you're getting into the methods of analysing a text. Where is meaning constructed? Is the only meaning in a book what the author intended? Or can the reader, through their new perspective, bring new meaning to the text? The current view is both; that meaning is constructed somewhere between the reader and the author.
The other thing anime is in doing things for which there's a shortage of decent actors. For example, I'd love to see what could be done with Ender's Game, but getting enough *decent* child actors to fill out the whole cast of 6 - 11 year old kids (not to mention that it spans about 6 years, and all those kids would be changing physically - kids at that age grow up pretty quick).
But an anime version could overcome these problems.
I didn't say they wanted Saddam in power. But I'm pretty sure they don't particularly want America in Iraq (Wether or not the US just comes in and sets up an Iraqi government; this is yet to be seen).
I think at least a few of these people are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the US (who is, after all, the aggressor, political rhetoric about pre-emptive strikes notwithstanding).
And if you're asking to me to stop making the Iraqis sound noble, I'd ask you to stop slandering them. "crosswired beliefs of Islam", "scared or deceived fools". Despite what is said, people rarely kill for religion. They kill for money, power or revenge, and religious difference is a nice excuse.
I'm not endorsing any of this necessarily, I'm saying this is what people can be driven too.
The sort of situations you have in the Middle East are like you have in school playgrounds sometimes. Two kids are having a bit of a punch up, and someone tries to come in and get them to break it up. And they both turn on that guy.
Osama, and most middle-eastern terrorists are more irritated at the US sticking their nose into their fight than the person they're fighting with.
Ender talks about what makes him so deadly (and so torn in himself) in the book:
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the wat they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them...I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."
Ender uses unconventional and unexpected tactics, but only as an outgrowth of his understanding of the enemy. He knows the enemy, knows what they expect, therefore he knows what they do not expect. And that's what he uses.
Just because someone sticks to their morals doesn't make them good. It's the morals themselves that have to be judged, not people's tenacity.
Just a few examples:
Hitler knew what he wanted. Among other things, the Jews dead. And he didn't bow to all these other countries saying he was a genocidal maniac, he did what he thought right.
The Worldcom et al CEOs knew what they wanted. Money. And they did whatever they could to get it. The rest of the world called them corrupt thieves, but they bravely ignored them.
Osama Bin Laden knows what he wants. Dead Americans (Well, a liberated homeland, but dead Americans are a nice intermin step). And he did whatever he could to get them.
Determination is not a replacement for moral fortitude.
Or alternatively, to people who don't know who John Locke was, Ender's Game has nothing to do with religion.
Apart from a few names, and the backgrounds of some characters, religion isn't raised as an issue to be dealt with in Ender's Game. The main purpose things like religion, nationality and culture serve in Ender's Game is to act as focii for government suppression.
On the other hand, propoganda certainly is an issue. Most of the Peter/Valentine narrative is a massive propoganda campaign, not to mention all the editing of the war vids, etc.
And I'd agree with the original poster that religion (and a whole host of metaphysical ideas) are discussed more in depth in later books.
*** Xenocide Spoiler ***
Uhhh, it wasn't religion or belief in gods that made Gloriously Bright trace woodgrains, it was the secret little OCD gene their government had inserted into their genetically engineered superbrains to keep em under control.
Starship Troopers was a book before it was a movie. It's the book that's referred to here, and it is quite different from the movie.
Actually, what you describe is better attributed to our enemies than ourselves.
Nobody expected aeroplanes to be used as a weapon. But they were. Guerilla warfare/terrorism is all about using unconventional weapons and tactics.
Actually, what is said in the books is that the humans didn't care if they could live in peace with the buggers or not. Mazer Rackham tells Ender that they don't know if the buggers would live in peace with them; all they know is that the buggers have attacked them before. Ramen, varelse, who cares. They might try and kill us, so let's make sure they can't.
Don't be so naieve. All these things may be immoral, and in violation of the "rules of war", but, rightly or wrongly, these people think they are fighting for their very survival, and the survival of their home. Whats right and wrong goes straight out of the window at that point.
If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
That's why it's so bloody dangerous to back people into a corner. When they've got nothing to lose, they can throw it all against you.
No, the point they made in Ender's Game was that his advantage came in being able to "submerge himself in someone else's will" (ie: empathy). The essential paradox of the perfect general is someone who is able to empathize with his opponent perfectly, but at the same time, is able to destroy them.
** Spoiler Alert **
(Though if you RTFA its already spoilt it)
That's why they had to resort to deception at the end of the novel. Because if Ender had known that he was actually killing the Buggers, his natural empathy, which made him a brilliant general, wouldn't be allow him to kill them.
offered to the first non-governmental organisation to launch a pilot and two passengers into space twice
I'm sure this guy's group could do it - just so long as they don't want it to be the same pilot and passengers.
t's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom
;p)
Whoa, boy, slow down a bit there!
More freedom isn't always a good thing. Granted, in the current situation, where liberties are being eroded, its a good thing. But like most things, this depends on a balance. Full, total, 100% freedom results in anarchy. Where everyone is free to do anything (murder, rape, steal), that's anarchy. As soon as you impose a single law, that's restricting freedom.
Freedom is good, but if you want to live in a civil society, restrictions must be placed on the freedom of some, to ensure the freedom of all.
(And by the way, I tested as Centrist. Can you tell?
If the word pedophile for some reason changed its meaning to indicate "upstanding, unblemished, handsome" or whatever, that would be fine.
You missed the point I was making, which is an arbitrarily assigned meaning of a word is pointless. Meaning is defined by common usage, not a dictionary. When common usage changes, the dictionary needs to be updated, the common usage does not need to be suppressed. Language is for communication, not mainting etymological sense.