Jump to content

Goodkind XXXI: We read it so you don't have to


Albert

Recommended Posts

OH TERRY! You're the gift that just keeps on giving, aren't you? And here I am getting depressed that we didn't get much quote-worthy stuff from Confessor. You just had to show us why you're the KING over Stan*k, Eng, and Newcomb.

I have no idea what he's talking about regarding gang rape and Swedish grandmothers and the Middle East; and absolutely LOVE how he is firmly convinced that the Islamic world want to kill everyone in the US.

And why does he keep on assuming that all fantasy stories are 'fantasy driven' ones, when in fact many of the current fanatsy today are 'character' driven? Oh yeah, right, he doesn't read books. Doesn't stop him from making sweeping generalizations, though.

In World War II, in Japan, there were no deaths of Americans by insurgence, and the reason [for that] is because America, at that time, had the courage to crush those who were enforcing evil ideas.

Speaking as someone whose country was conquered by the US THEN by Japan...I have no idea what he's talking about. Is he saying that no one revolted against the Americans and killed many of them during WWII or prior to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think he might be talking about how great it was that the US sent all its Japanese citizens to internment camps during WW2, just in case some of them might have been terr'ists. Or possibly he might mean that after Japan was conquered by the US, all of their citizens stayed conquered and didn't do what the Iraqis are doing now. It's hard to be sure; moral clarity <> verbal clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think he might be talking about how great it was that the US sent all its Japanese citizens to internment camps during WW2, just in case some of them might have been terr'ists. Or possibly he might mean that after Japan was conquered by the US, all of their citizens stayed conquered and didn't do what the Iraqis are doing now. It's hard to be sure; moral clarity <> verbal clarity.

Hm, I think you nailed it, Min. With all his talk about the War on Terror, this does makes sense. I'm sure Terry approves of the going ons in Guantanamo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, I think you nailed it, Min. With all his talk about the War on Terror, this does makes sense. I'm sure Terry approves of the going ons in Guantanamo.

Tariy thinks they are being too soft on the commie-terrorists-bastards! They should read WFR and learn how a real man tortures prisoners: with butt-plugs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will sometimes spend half a day on one paragraph because I'm trying to get the exact right words that convey the exact, proper connotations of what the human beings are thinking, doing, whatever.

From Phantom:

"The last man who had visited the Temple of the Winds, three thousand years before Richard had, had somehow, while there, seen to it that the Temple would release Subtractive Magic, which Richard had been born with, in part, so that he could get into the Temple of the Winds to stop a plague started by a dream walker who had been born because a wizard, Lothain, had been there first and seen to it that a dream walker would be born in order to rule the world and destroy magic."

And this work he did labour over but one half of one day, and before the cheese-sandwiches-of-moral-rectitude-at-about-half-past-twelve were set before him to be devoured at the midday meal, his toil was done. Then, quoth he: "I am Terry-man-yeardias, king of kings. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."

Seriously, half a day for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature cannot have a value independent of mankind, and this is what the environmental movement has become: a religion. They've ascribed value to nature absent mankind. They've ascribed value to nature, and so what happens is, whatever you do to harm nature, people say, "You've harmed this good thing, that makes mankind bad." They're using that line of philosophy to hate mankind, because mankind is detrimental to nature. They've turned nature into a religion, making into something that is holy without reality. If nature has value, it's for how mankind can use it. It's incumbent upon human beings to respect nature for their own rational self-interests.

Yes, asswipe, soil has NO value unless man is planting crops to sell for a profit, right? Oxygen has no value unless you're fining someone polluting your neighborhood? He's an idiot. Nothing has value if it doesn't exist. If all these inanimate or natural phenomena did not exist and have value, his noble ass wouldn't be alive right now.

This is what I hate most about TG. Look at that quote about harming nature. I don't personally know anyone who worships nature, though it's pretty silly not to. Nature allows our existence. It has nothing to do with hating mankind. He speaks in absolutes. Any environmentalist who complains hates mankind? Horseshit. Environmentalists hate waste and gluttony. Cures for diseases, weather patterns and health all rely on nature. We're not tithing our incomes to Mother Nature, we're not praying to suckle the teat of the green goddess.

He refuses to question his own system of beliefs. I think he realizes that if he took a minute to play devil's advocate, his entire life would be the 4th act in a 3 act play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does have a point when he says Nature has no value outside of mankind though, if we forget his narrow minded approach and his strawman.

After all, you can always relate an action to a benefit for the person who does it. Why are ecologists trying to preserve nature? it's not for the good of the planet in itself, it's because the good of the planet means the good of mankind. Who wants to slowly starve in a desolated wasteland after all?

The only thing he is saying there is that choosing long-term benefits over short-term wish-fulfilment is choosing death. Bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does have a point when he says Nature has no value outside of mankind though, if we forget his narrow minded approach and his strawman.

After all, you can always relate an action to a benefit for the person who does it. Why are ecologists trying to preserve nature? it's not for the good of the planet in itself, it's because the good of the planet means the good of mankind. Who wants to slowly starve in a desolated wasteland after all?

The only thing he is saying there is that choosing long-term benefits over short-term wish-fulfilment is choosing death. Bullshit.

My big problem with it is the fact that I don't seperate nature from mankind. I think we evolved just like every other plant or bug or animal on the planet. We're a part of a system that was around before us and deserves to be around long after we're gone. Putting man above everything else invites disaster, especially unto ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does have a point when he says Nature has no value outside of mankind though, if we forget his narrow minded approach and his strawman.

After all, you can always relate an action to a benefit for the person who does it. Why are ecologists trying to preserve nature? it's not for the good of the planet in itself, it's because the good of the planet means the good of mankind. Who wants to slowly starve in a desolated wasteland after all?

The only thing he is saying there is that choosing long-term benefits over short-term wish-fulfilment is choosing death. Bullshit.

I basically agree with you. I suspect Goodkind is the kind of person who believes that nature is just "pretty" scenery but that it doesn't really perform any function. Forests are well and good, but what are they really "achieving" after all? If we cut them all down we can make wood and paper and farmland, and everyone agrees that those things are useful, by God!

I know that there are some GreenyCommies around who do want protect nature for purely altruistic reasons, but a lot of the reasons I've been hearing recently have been really, really, well... practical.

I'm actually a little surprised since Goodkind occasionally comes off as a bit of a tree hugger himself--in the most manly and capitalistic of ways of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...