439 replies to this topic

[Watcher]

I was going to praise Mindonner on his (her?) excellent parody and say that was the funniest thing I read today. But then I read the newest QotD.  

Sorry Mindonner, the master is still greater then the student.

[Errant Bard]

Quote

Mother smacked her across the mouth
“You don’t know what burdens life has handed the man. Don’t you dare to judge people for their actions just because you are too callous and insensitive to take the time to understand them.”

Is dedicated to a certain someone calling a bunch of other people he doesn't know terrorists.

Quote

Thinking is a vile acid that corrodes faith! It is your duty to believe, not think. [...]
“Feelings, not thinking, must be your guide. Faith, not thinking, must be your only path.”

Uhhhhh dammit, isn't that in direct contradiction with one of the wizards rules? What is the author getting at? Should I let reason drive, or passion, in the end? What's the damn message?

[Slick Mongoose]

Quote

Uhhhhh dammit, isn't that in direct contradiction with one of the wizards rules? What is the author getting at? Should I let reason drive, or passion, in the end? What's the damn message?

He's using a strawman to say that faith = bad. It's another one of his subtle points.  :P

[Moosicus]

The Wolf Maid, on Jul 21 2006, 11.45, said:

I have absolutely no idea what this scene is trying to accomplish. Are Nicci's mother and her friends supposed to be 'communist', and Nicci's father the Capitalist?
hmmm....

Yup.
ETA: I would also suggest that its a stab against religious people. I doubt religion enjoys much of a place in objectivism.

Edited by The Mad Moose, 21 July 2006 - 10:01 AM.

[MinDonner]

Watcher, on Jul 21 2006, 15.52, said:

I was going to praise Mindonner on his (her?) excellent parody and say that was the funniest thing I read today. But then I read the newest QotD.  

Sorry Mindonner, the master is still greater then the student.

Sigh. As if I would presume to take the crown from His Yeardness (BBHN) - his greatness touches us all.

And it's her, btw :D

Edited by MinDonner, 21 July 2006 - 10:04 AM.

[Xray the Enforcer]

:sick:  :sick:  :sick:

:unsure:

Interesting exchange, actually. Good natured roasting vs. slagging...slim difference, especially when on the side of the beleaguered.

In fact, it is difficult to separate the stupid ridiculosity that is Richard Rahl (and, by extension, Randian Objectivism) and the, uh, abrasive person, Terry Goodkind. If, as both fans and detractors seem to agree, Richard Rahl is a manifestation of GK's own life-philosophy, then when Richard does some stupid shit -- and acts in a manifestly amoral manner -- one can extrapolate that GK himself believes that acting amorally -- or just doing a bunch of stupid shit -- is OK. Kicking girls in the jaw? Slaughtering peace protestors? Only the most sociopathic freaks would think that these actions are acceptable.

If, on the other hand, both we and the GK fans could agree that RR is not inhabiting the role of avatar of GKs personal life philosophy, then 1) those who believe GK's books provide a legitimate thesis on how to approach life (kicking girls in the jaw is OK, because one must excise evil with a vengeance) are embarrassingly blinkered (sorry, man) and 2) the sporkers are being mean-spirited, because the stupidity that is Richard Rahl has zero to do with what Goodkind actually believes.

I think it's patently obvious that Richard is, in fact, an avatar of Goodkind's life philosophy -- and I think that interviews with him and discussions with some of his fans bears this out. And since RR = GK, it is legit to spork the man when his (thinly characterized) avatar acts like a fucking jerk.

[The Wolf Maid]

The Mad Moose, on Jul 21 2006, 22.59, said:

Yup.
ETA: I would also suggest that its a stab against religious people. I doubt religion enjoys much of a place in objectivism.

Well, at least I have a bit of 'moral clarity' to figure that out.  :lol:

(and if it is a stab for religious people, I should point out that there are passages in the Bible that discourages people to follow their 'heart' ('feelings') as it can be deceitful at times.  :cool: )

Quote

I think it's patently obvious that Richard is, in fact, an avatar of Goodkind's life philosophy -- and I think that interviews with him and discussions with some of his fans bears this out. And since RR = GK, it is legit to spork the man when his (thinly characterized) avatar acts like a fucking jerk.

Well said, X-ray the Enforcer.

and I would like to point out to mystar a certain Supreme Court decision [Hustler vs. Falwell] (as taken from Wikipedia):
...because under the First Amendment, an obvious satire or parody of a public figure remains protected speech, even if it causes emotional distress to that person. A public figure couldn't recover damages without showing not only that the publication contained a "false statement of fact" (that is, a statement that a reasonable reader would believe to be true), but also that the satirist acted with "actual malice" (that is, "with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true").

The court stated that satire (even outrageous satire) has a long and important history in America and that the Founding Fathers had specifically intended for the First Amendment to protect these types of parodies. The court cited many examples of famous, if bitingly satirical, political cartoons, "from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day." The Court paid particular attention to the cartoons of Thomas Nast, whose cartoons ridiculed the corruption of Tammany Hall and helped bring about the downfall of Boss Tweed. The court noted that Nast's cartoons were successful because of their emotional impact, which arose out of going "beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners."

Edited by The Wolf Maid, 21 July 2006 - 10:25 AM.

[Lightning Lord]

I am not up to speed in this thread, I made it to the link tg.net from page 15, I think, with "mystar."

I hurt from reading the page it brought me to.  I am sure "mystar" has an "ability" "somewhere" to "write."  I cannot be "sure," though, as his "posting" appeared to be "written" by a "4 year old parapalegic with no arm beneath the elbow who was born blind and in a non-English speaking country.*"



*Truly no offense meant to 4 year olds, parapalegics, any who have suffered amputations, the blind or those who do not speak english.  Any of you could do better than that, I am sure, but then you are all also smart enough to avoid TG.



ETA: I made it to page 18, mystar's response here.  It is far easier to wrangle sentences with something resembling proper grammar, thus he is seemingly not the aforementioned descriptive phrase.  My bad. :)

Edited by Lightning Lord, 21 July 2006 - 10:24 AM.

[Tagot]

Regarding the "kicking the little girl in the jaw" bit... I have one question:

How is Violet any different from Joffrey? Granted Joffrey was a bit older, but if he had been an eight-year-old and acting like that I'm sure that we, as the readers, would have liked to see him dead too, and wouldn't have faulted Sansa if she had killed him. Is killing an evil little girl any worse than killing an evil little boy?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Edited by Tagot, 21 July 2006 - 10:24 AM.

[Dagger]

[quote name='The Mad Moose' date='Jul 21 2006, 09.24' post='383723']
as if the number were a club she had been hiding behind her back, and, seeing the opening she had been waiting for, she suddenly brandished it to bully him.

He was all crumpled down in his chair, like a pile of dirty clothes.

People eagerly mumbled their acknowledgment, as if this were an umbrella to run in under to escape the drenching silence.  

One of the other women puffed herself up like a chicken ready to lay an egg.


Wow, what a command of metaphor.  I am sure fellow stylists like Dan Brown and Tom Clancey are quaking in their boots at TG's Shakespearean gift.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Well, I think killing both is immoral. Especially at the age of 8.

[Tagot]

Xray the Enforcer, on Jul 21 2006, 11.24, said:

Well, I think killing both is immoral. Especially at the age of 8.

Would you have faulted Sansa for doing so?

[MinDonner]

Well, instead of Sansa doing it, imagine it was Ned. Ned, who is the embodiment of honour and high morals, much in the same way that Richard is portrayed in SoT. Can you imagine Ned kicking Joffrey in the face and killing him? Then not feeling sorry about it afterwards? No, Ned basically sacrificed his entire family because he was doing the right thing and trying to save the little monster, and I'm pretty sure he'd do it again even knowing the consequences, because killing kids is just not something that you do.

Now Richard, on the other hand...

[Tagot]

Point taken. Though the idea of comparing Ned to Richard makes me shudder.

[The Wolf Maid]

Tagot, on Jul 21 2006, 23.20, said:

Regarding the "kicking the little girl in the jaw" bit... I have one question:

How is Violet any different from Joffrey? Granted Joffrey was a bit older, but if he had been an eight-year-old and acting like that I'm sure that we, as the readers, would have liked to see him dead too, and wouldn't have faulted Sansa if she had killed him. Is killing an evil little girl any worse than killing an evil little boy?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

But this would be Sansa doing the killing, a child herself, so things would be even, as she and joff are both in the same level of maturity and age. Richard, however, is a full-grown man kicking a little girl. What can a little girl do against a grown man and his rising thing? Granted Richard was being tortured and was tied up so you could say he was weakened, but still, he could have done something else to get out of the situation than killing a stupid little girl.

[Xray the Enforcer]

MinDonner pwnd my answer.
Sansa doing it feasibly in self-defense...arguable.
Ned taking it upon himself to "rid the world of a great evil" because that's a "moral" act?  Not so justifiable.

[Moosicus]

The Wolf Maid, on Jul 21 2006, 12.32, said:

But this would be Sansa doing the killing, a child herself, so things would be even, as she and joff are both in the same level of maturity and age. Richard, however, is a full-grown man kicking a little girl. What can a little girl do against a grown man and his rising thing? Granted Richard was being tortured and was tied up so you could say he was weakened, but still, he could have done something else to get out of the situation than killing a stupid little girl.

Richard was already out of the situation. Denna had taken the agiel away from Violet and asserted her authority, which Richard realized was more than the queen held. So he was perfectly safe from Violet when he booted her. He reacted out of spite when the little twit started going on about the things she would do to Kahlan, and then stuck her tongue out at him.

[14th Dragon]

MinDonner, on Jul 21 2006, 11.26, said:

Well, instead of Sansa doing it, imagine it was Ned. Ned, who is the embodiment of honour and high morals, much in the same way that Richard is portrayed in SoT. Can you imagine Ned kicking Joffrey in the face and killing him? Then not feeling sorry about it afterwards? No, Ned basically sacrificed his entire family because he was doing the right thing and trying to save the little monster, and I'm pretty sure he'd do it again even knowing the consequences, because killing kids is just not something that you do.

Now Richard, on the other hand...

Yet in the end, Neds actions lead to his eldest being regularly beaten then married into the Lannisters regardless then left to mercies of Littlefinger. His younger daughter becoming an assiasin, his best friend being killed, his son going to war and a whole host of other tradgedy. Had he been willing to let the three kids swing a lot less people would be dead.

Sometimes, an evil action is required to get a good end. Doesn't justify the means, but it sometimes neccistates the means.

The problem I have with TG (BBHN) is that he truly believes the philoshophy behind the action determines whether it is right or wrong. Kicking the girl in the jaw is right becuase it based on the attempted defense of another and an act of rebellion against one trying to make you a slave. So it goes one step beyond the end justifying the means but the intent justifies the means.

[The Wolf Maid]

The Mad Moose, on Jul 21 2006, 23.35, said:

Richard was already out of the situation. Denna had taken the agiel away from Violet and asserted her authority, which Richard realized was more than the queen held. So he was perfectly safe from Violet when he booted her. He reacted out of spite when the little twit started going on about the things she would do to Kahlan, and then stuck her tongue out at him.

I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing that out. :D

Back to the question....Sansa would have done it for revenge because of Joff ordered Ned's beheading. Richard did it for spite for something that has NOT taken place. It'd say Sansa killing Joff has a more 'justifiable' reason than Richard doing so.

Quote

Yet in the end, Neds actions lead to his eldest being regularly beaten then married into the Lannisters regardless then left to mercies of Littlefinger. His younger daughter becoming an assiasin, his best friend being killed, his son going to war and a whole host of other tradgedy. Had he been willing to let the three kids swing a lot less people would be dead.

Sometimes, an evil action is required to get a good end. Doesn't justify the means, but it sometimes neccistates the means

...Sound like Machiavelli.  :D

Robb wasn't regularly beaten. He won every battle, but lost the war in a bedchamber.

And how could we know Ned killing Joff and the three kids could make things turn out better? Varys has hinted that Robert was doomed anyway, he was becoming too unmanagable. And regardless of the charge of incest, Tywin wouldn't have just let the killing of his blood pass. And I would bet there are Houses willing to go against Robert with Tywin, incest or not.

Edited by The Wolf Maid, 21 July 2006 - 10:51 AM.

[Jaxom 1974]

Quote

When you choose to move from simply good-natured roasting, and twist it into character assignation and demeaning a person for their beliefs, you then become the very thing against which freedom stands, you then become a terrorist. I choose not to go that far.

I'm sorry...I'm late on this this morning, I know...but what character have we assigned Mr. Goodkind?