Haven't you heard of metaphors, figurative language, etc?
If you think that you can only learn things from non-fiction books, then you're really missing out.
Ya know, I HAVE heard of metaphors and figurative language, but doesn't that mean you could interpet the same work in about 500,000 different ways? Stop wasting your time with happy ideological metaphorical horseshit, less potatos and more meat, there's a good metaphor for ya.
Utilizing a FICTIONAL novel, published in 1949 to interpet the US presently or in the future is absolutely ridiculous.
I swear to god, this country needs more political scientists.
The stance is pretty simple. Fighting hate with hate, motivated by fear, isn't really going to accomplish anything. This is a fight that must be fought with a belief in the concept of rights, motivated by a singular moral precept: the belief that life and happiness are the highest ideals.
I'm very sympathetic to those who desire to erase fanatical Islam for the same reasons I'm very sympathetic to those who desire to erase any fanatical beliefs that drive men to kill one another. Fanatical murderers stand opposed to the moral ideals above.
I am not sympathetic to those who simply desire to hold sway over their fellow men, or hold power over their chosen territory if their only claim to that territory is the fear they can inspire in others. That is the business of Islamic fanatics, and I do not like to see this country that I love adopting that business.
Fanaticism is a mindset. War, even the rare justifiable defensive war, is the business of fighting over territory. You cannot destroy a mindset with a war unless you are simply willing to destroy the mind that holds it. And to do that, you must embrace the morality of the very same fanatical murderer you claimed to reject in the first place.
To fight a mindset without adopting its evil principles, you must simply prove it invalid. You must demostrate how it contradicts the basic ideals, moral or otherwise, shared by nearly all human beings. You must give people a better option to embrace to accomplish that which they seek.
In that vein, America is wise to seek a spread of democracy and the principles of freedom in the Middle East. However, they are not wise to do so via strong-man domination in violation of the basic principles of democracy and freedom.
Furthermore, our approach has been far too nation-centric. Rather, we must focus simply on areas of influence and potential, regardless of the nation they occupy.
In short, I do not believe in the conspiracy and "evil empire" views of those who oppose this war. Rather, I simply think this nation is fighting a territorial battle more appropriate for the Cold War era. This is not a battle for land. This is a battle for minds.
so since we seem to be incapable of changing, we will ultimately fail and cause more instability. do you think that the article on control of oil being handed over to western influences is valid?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Ya know, I HAVE heard of metaphors and figurative language, but doesn't that mean you could interpet the same work in about 500,000 different ways? Stop wasting your time with happy ideological metaphorical horseshit, less potatos and more meat, there's a good metaphor for ya.
Utilizing a FICTIONAL novel, published in 1949 to interpet the US presently or in the future is absolutely ridiculous.
I swear to god, this country needs more political scientists.
More political scientists would be fine, but I would like to see more economists, accountants, and mathematicians.
Ya know, I HAVE heard of metaphors and figurative language, but doesn't that mean you could interpet the same work in about 500,000 different ways? Stop wasting your time with happy ideological metaphorical horseshit, less potatos and more meat, there's a good metaphor for ya.
Utilizing a FICTIONAL novel, published in 1949 to interpet the US presently or in the future is absolutely ridiculous.
Really? Last time I checked millions of people were still reading and interpreting a book that's what, 2000 years or older?
so since we seem to be incapable of changing, we will ultimately fail and cause more instability.
Well, not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by "fail". Will we make the situation ideal? Certainly not. Will we make it arguably better in the short term? No way. Will we make it arguably better in the long term? Perhaps. It all depends on whether or not our goal is aggression or defense. I hold onto an optimistic belief that America's policies will eventually steer towards defending those in the Middle East who desire freedom, rather than simply attempting to eliminate those who desire control.
do you think that the article on control of oil being handed over to western influences is valid?
Depends on what you mean. I'm not sure which "article" you're referring to.
Comments
the worst fiction out there is called "White House Press Releases"
Ya know, I HAVE heard of metaphors and figurative language, but doesn't that mean you could interpet the same work in about 500,000 different ways? Stop wasting your time with happy ideological metaphorical horseshit, less potatos and more meat, there's a good metaphor for ya.
Utilizing a FICTIONAL novel, published in 1949 to interpet the US presently or in the future is absolutely ridiculous.
I swear to god, this country needs more political scientists.
so since we seem to be incapable of changing, we will ultimately fail and cause more instability. do you think that the article on control of oil being handed over to western influences is valid?
~Ron Burgundy
More political scientists would be fine, but I would like to see more economists, accountants, and mathematicians.
I hear that, more jobs for the likes of you and I.
Really? Last time I checked millions of people were still reading and interpreting a book that's what, 2000 years or older?
Yeah but that book has no business in our political system, neither does yours.
And as a Christian, I see the difference and don't try to mix, you need to learn to think with your head and not your heart.
Well, not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by "fail". Will we make the situation ideal? Certainly not. Will we make it arguably better in the short term? No way. Will we make it arguably better in the long term? Perhaps. It all depends on whether or not our goal is aggression or defense. I hold onto an optimistic belief that America's policies will eventually steer towards defending those in the Middle East who desire freedom, rather than simply attempting to eliminate those who desire control.
Depends on what you mean. I'm not sure which "article" you're referring to.