EIGHT MORE POSTS!!!
I noticed that you started the Doctor Who thread...my favorite thread!
I didn't do aaaanything :333
And scheme? What?? o:
I lol'd all through your post xD
Okay, I see your problem. Orwell was a socialist: it's not relevant. Here's some more of the essay:
[QUOTE=Orwell]For his sake [Hitler] a great nation has been willing to work itself for six years and then to fight for two more years, whereas for the common-sense, essentially hedonistic world-view which MR. Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood. Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people. What has kept England on it's feet the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets bat this moment. [/QUOTE]
In the end, what we differ in is our end: Orwell, moralist that he is, would perhaps tolerate weakness if the trade off was socialism, and the power was a temporary means to implement it- we've seen how that works, hey!
As for your "inherent qualities" remark: dude, these have been the inherent qualities of mankind since we emerged from our caves and they are still are today. Not the exact same examples but still manifestations of the same human instinct (ie. we don't king-worship but we still celebrity-worship, and so on).
I just don't understand. Are you trying to say that the quote is saying that these are inherent qualities of human nature? That would be a misread of the quote. It is saying that those were very prevalent qualities at the time, in the 1930s, which was true.
At any rate, Orwell was a socialist who fought alongside the anarchists in Spain, which is why I find it odd for you to quote him.
Lol, I'm not either. I'm just wondering what you were trying to convey with the quote. I don't necessarily have anything to say about it, because I don't know what you were trying to say by referencing it.
Right, but what were you trying to convey, and how was it relevant to your earlier discussion?
Yes, I got that part. What was the relevancy of the quote?
[QUOTE=Sam;3899621]Nothing to do with man/woman equality, but a nice quote for anyone who was following mine and Andross' discussion on human nature and liberalism earlier in the thread. From George Orwell's essay "Wells, Hitler and the World State", which I found in the library today:[/QUOTE]
What was the point of this quote?
Okay, here's a little something extra:
Also, you can delete whatever posts on the wall that you want.
Your wall could use a bit of love and humor.
OH: you aren't on Skype, are you? :3
Hey, as an aspiring female artist, I did just want to point out how blatantly offensive I find this and would like to provide you with a nice, brief view of women in art.
Yes, obviously I know there are plenty of women who [I]attempt[/I] to be artists, and I know their must be some outliers, some special cases, who have created some truly great art, but generally speaking to my knowledge women simply aren't very interested in creating art (or perhaps just aren't very good at it). I was just asking for handful of specific examples.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, women have been oppressed throughout the centuries and as such have not had the same opportunities as men except in very specific circumstances, but I would like to point out some female artists that are desperately in need of some credit and were trying to seize equality.
Let's begin, shall we?
I know Astrael has provided you with a list, but I'll provide you with some context and highlights in case you're feeling a bit lazy.
This is a Roman mosaic that copies an earlier Greek painting. It depicts the confrontation of Alexander the Great and Darius III at the battle of Issos. This is a significant painting because it shows a huge progression in the ability to depict perspective. The wheels on the chariots are ellipses rather than circles, there is foreshortening, especially in some of the horses, there's even a bit of atmospheric perspective. This painting is also largely attributed to Helen of Egypt. A woman.
Sofonisba Anguissola is a very well known female artist of the Renaissance. She was forced to stick to portraiture in order to compete with her peers because she was not allowed to view nudes to study anatomy in order to undertake religious pieces. She is quite famous though, it's a shame you've never heard of her.
Artemisia Gentileschi is also quite famous. Her paintings are heavily influenced by the works of Carvaggio, but retain their own unique quality to them. She worked hard to portray strong women or women who were being mistreated in the Bible, if that's not trying to display the plight and potential of women, I don't know what is. Women have been trying to legitimize themselves for thousands of years.
A bit of a skip in time because I'm not quite as knowledgeable in other decades, but if you haven't heard of Mary Cassatt, you've been living under a rock. An impressionist painter, she too tried to depict the lives of women and through art, elevate their place in society to one of reverence. The private lives of women were important aspects of culture, an entire 1/2 of the population was women and they were not having their side of the story of life told. Mary Cassatt tried to change that.
Surely you know this photo, right? It's the definitive "Great Depression" image. And who was the photographer? None other than a woman, one Dorothea Lange. I don't even know what more to say.
Again, surely you know Georgia O'Keeffe? She's pretty damn famous for her feminine imagery.
And there are thousands upon thousands of women artists still at work today. Not just in the fine arts such as painting, but in fashion, advertising, music, sculpture, photography, film, and the list goes on...and as I mentioned in an earlier post, women haven't just been vying for equality in arts this whole time, they've been doing so for centuries. Hatshepsut led Egypt long before Cleopatra, regarded as one of the most successful Egyptian pharaohs bringing Egypt a huge amount of prosperity and wealth when she opened trades with Punt and had great military victories in Nubia. It's also suggested that the first true Emperor of Rome, Caesar Augustus, left his wife Livia in power of Rome in his absence. And from there it only expands.
Women have been trying to make names for themselves and have done fairly well throughout history considering the harsh opposition to such. We're a few centuries behind men unfortunately, you got a bit of a cultural head start. Please don't think that means that we're incapable of or are not trying to be equals, that's fairly ridiculous.
Jeebus, I come over to your wall to send some luvin' and there's all this debating going on. EXCUSE ME WHILE I MAKE LOVE TO YOUR WALL AMIDST THE EXCHANGE OF OPPOSING VIEWS, GOOD SIR.
Liah Plus. Dude, I was all voice call-ish with (Avalanche)Mike when I read that and literally lol'd, and read the quote to him. You make me a happy lady, but I bet all the girls tell you that, even the potentially-guys-pretending-to-be-girls on the internet.
[quote]So I guess to be educated you have to have read every bunglers and charlatans attempts at thought, do you? I guess that explains what got you so confused (I could equally ask you, being in the position that you claim to be in, a position in which you are able to judge between Nietzsche and Chomsky, what you think about Schelling).[/quote]
What position am I claiming to be in? I simply asked you a question. [i]You[/i] claimed to be in a position, however, and that's where the assumption arose.
As for the question, no, but you [I]should [/I]know about some of the modern, leading minds of the field if you're interested in it. Read up on Chomsky and tell me what you think of him.
[quote]I've never even heard of this guy, which doesn't mean he isn't saying something worthwhile, the best philosophers are often ignored in their lifetimes, but what he is saying is not "irrelevant", it's very ****ing relevant.[/quote]
When I said it was "irrelevant," I was referring to our prior conversation. You asked "What did he say" as if it was a continuation of some previous conversation (Or if it was relevant to a previous conversation here), which it isn't (The only thing it's a continuation of is the fact that you apparently place value in philosophy; I want to know what you think of one of the most well-respected modern-day philosophers, since you know so much about past ones).
I did want to know what you thought of him, though, as you place a large value on experts, and since you're so interested in philosophy I assumed you would know about one of the individuals academia (Experts) generally considers to be one of the leading minds of the field (If not the most intelligent man currently alive). After all, you can't quite judge modern ideology and thought (As you did previously) without truly knowing it.
Among other fields, of course; he made a name for himself as a linguist, but he's far more.
What he said is irrelevant; I'm assuming that, since you are educated in/know about the field of philosophy, you know about Noam Chomsky, and I want to know what you think of him.
I'm not repeating anything he said, though. What makes you think he's a charlatan?
What do you think of Noam Chomsky?
Just having my daily stalk-Sam's-wall dose. I've been suffering withdrawal of late because I skipped a few days. It was terrible. Hold me.
I've started an MC thread in the Feedback section that I suggest[URL="http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/feedback-suggestions-and-questions/121914-minecraft-sub-forum.html#post3871646"] you need to check out![/URL] It concerns MC having its own subforum here instead of just a crammed thread. Go and support!
Those two things do no relate since I'm talking about your attitude in general and you're talking about me defining your attitude in general.
[quote]And, no, I've got no particular intention of making any effort to sugar coat everything I say.[/quote] No one is asking you to sugar coat. I'm simply asking you not to pepper coat.
Anyway, I tried to reason with you. Good luck in the future.
I was not rude to you. At all. I don't know where you gained this notion.
My "sensitivity" to being told to shut up has nothing to do with anything. You telling people to shut up will never be tolerated here. You're trying to find justifications to why you're a d-bag. Just tell me with a simple yes or no: are you going to make an effort to be less rude to others from now on?
You didn't answer my question.
Sam, I see that your black tongue is easily agitated. Will you agree to be a little nicer to the people you speak and debate with from now on?
[quote=Sam] (Don't think it'll protect you if you're on the wrong side of me, though! )[/quote]
Wouldn't expect it!
I don't generally jump into the same debates you do. I tend to just play video games as a pass time and don't really go into hardcore analysis. I just happen find your posts on the subject quite interesting. (and your sarcastic tone fairly entertaining. It amuses me that people won't listen to you just because you occasionally throw in an insult.)
Definition: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument.
[QUOTE=Sam;3868118]lol! Facts = Gamerankings! [B]Shut up, Radek[/B], nobody cares what the morons who write for IGN et al have to say about ANYTHING, let alone criticism. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam;3868154]@Radek. [B]Shut up.[/B] Ban me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam;3868208]lol, Radek, ignoring my post is a[I] fine[/I] tactic, for sure, but remember that repeating things I've already debunked makes look you look stupid and stubborn to anyone who didn't.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam;3868257]So now you're fighting for some sort of [I]moral[/I] high ground. lol! Also: you can't show that I'm wrong so I must be arrogant? Jesus. This is too easy to be interesting. I'm out.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam;3868279]Incredible. Someone who thinks they are right is wrong. [B]There's just no hope for some people.[/B][/QUOTE]
[quote][B]EDIT:[/B] Jeez, some people are so sensitive. [B]How old is this guy, serious question?[/B][/QUOTE]
That looks like [I]a lot[/I] of insulting and belittling to me. The fact that you couldn't even put together a single post without doing either is a very clear example of ad hominem.
Just wanted to let you know that even if I don't always agree with your posts about stuff, I always find your posts extremely interesting to read. It makes me sad that most people can't seem to appreciate your posts. Especially people like Radek that would rather cry about you telling them to shut up.
your rude arguing style in debates is riddled with ad hominem... i'm not sure you know what fallacies are, man.