Catherine
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Catherine
-
-
No, I think you are highly misinformed about the completeness of the medical procedures which exist currently. There exists no procedure by which a woman may become a fully functional male nor a man a fully functional female. All procedures currently in existence only change superficial appearances. Even the hormone therapies are crude at best compared to actually being a man or a woman.
I suggest reading up on the subject, if you're interested.
No, I think you're misusing the word "superficial". You haven't offered any evidence that it is, except to say that the current medical procedures are "crude at best". There are women AND men who aren't "fully functional" - and yet are still, for all practical purposes, "male" or "female". I suggest you ask a transsexual, or listen to a radio broadcast/television interview. I doubt any of them will call the process "superficial". While it hasn't been perfected, the medical procedures that currently exist are still pretty advanced - transsexual women still can achieve orgasm, etcetera. They may not be able to reproduce, or nurse their children, but a ) certain women NEVER will and b ) I doubt that it will be impossible for scientists to figure out how to enable transsexual men to.
The fact is that one cannot, right now, become anything more than a mutilated approximation of the opposite gender. Now, even given this, a transgender individual may be happier living as one of those than as a fully functioning member of a gender that they cannot feel. So everything that applies to homosexuality applies in this case as well. It's just more unfortunate for them.Whether we cannot RIGHT NOW is irrelevant to the morality of the subject - especially since medical professionals are nearing a point when people CAN change their sexual identity completely. The discussion here is: if it were possible for a person to undergo a sex change, could they change their sexual identity and still be fully happy? and is a person's "self" defined by what they are born with?
-
Because there does not exist such an ability. You cannot change your sex, despite all superficial attempts to the contrary.
What do you mean by this? Not only is it possible to switch your reproductive organs, but there are also mental and hormonal therapies available to men/women who undergo transsexual surgeries. Are you suggesting that your only true "self" is the self you are born with? Because at this point in time, it IS possible to both physically and mentally change your sex. I'm not sure how you're using "superficial" here.
If you think that homosexuality is a defiance of one's male or female identity, then how is transgenderism not the same?Again, if you change your "self" - biologically and mentally - how is it a denial of self? Homosexuality is a denial of what our reproductive organs are designed for, and what our physical/mental needs are as men and women. Transgenderism is BECOMING someone of the opposite sex. I would agree that transgenderism without sex change is a denial, but post-sex change operation, I would disagree.
-
Anti-homosexuality sentiment is NOT rooted in Christianity - it's rooted in Judaism. And I agree - I think "fear" is an inappropriate word in our discussion here.
The fact that ancient Greeks were homosexual does not make it objectively moral. I'm sure there are multiple topics on this forum that would address this, so I won't bother.
*
As for transgenderism, I think the term "mutilation" is also inappropriate. I don't see what about the procedure separates it from cosmetic surgeries such as rhinoplasty or breast augmentation, or from a procedure like an appendectomy.
I don't think that transgenderism is any different, morally, from homosexuality. What conclusions one has about homosexuality, I think would necessarily have to apply to transgenerderism.I think they are completely two separate issues! One deals with a man sleeping with a man (or woman/woman), and the other deals with someone biologically changing their sex. How are they at all the same? If someone becomes a biological woman, in what way would it be immoral for her to sleep with a man?
I think the fundamental question surrounding this issue is: should people be allowed to change what their genes determined? I agree with the Objectivist principle that homosexuality is a denial of self, but I don't see how changing your sex is (especially since transgenders DO go through therapy to become their new, respective sex in both body & mind). Perhaps Inspector has a comment on this?
-
Did she actually do anything in reality to correct it? Robbie spent three years in prison before being released on condition of enlistment in the army (and later loosing his life) - 3 years! By then she was 16 - not a small child anymore.
This attempt at atonment through changing the ending to a happy one is no atonment at all. Her excessive fantasizing, allowing herself to detract from reality, partially caused this terrible situation in a first place.
The ending attempts to consider lies in reality vs. in fiction suggesting that while the first is destructive, the second (we are talking about a lie here) can offer a chance at happiness unachieved in life. In what way? Happiness for whom? The primacy of consciousness over existance?
Finally, I did not like the way with which it was revealed to the audience, at least in the movie (audience already cheering for the two lovers, uplifted in thinking that things worked out for them afterall), that it actually did not happen. It was like being given something great and then, just when you came to be attached to it, it being yanked from you with force. It is not something a romantic heart appreciates~
I ended up seeing the movie, and agree! The acting was great, and I loved the cinematography (especially for the scene on the beach during the war). Otherwise, the book was better.
As for why I found it disgusting, I found that
the death of Cecilia and Robbie trivialized the actually story - had Robbie died in jail, and Cecilia, a widow, it would have made more sense. Instead, they were both killed because of the war - it just seemed unrelated and random.
Furthermore, I felt as if Ian McEwan had betrayed his readers. I can understand Rearden_Steel's point, but there was a specific line in the novel (and ugh, I don't have it with me, sorry!) that suggested more mockery of his readers than a romanticism. Sorry, it's generally not my policy to make statements without proof - but again, I don't have my book. When I get it, I'll go back and read it, though, because you might be right about it!
-
in more or less words, no one person can fulfill all of one's needs.
Having searched through the other threads myself, I haven't found any post that directly addresses this (or where everyone reaches one conclusion). My personal response to this would be that this statement is inaccurate - and that I, and other members on this board, HAVE found a single person that fulfills all of our needs (intellectually, sexually, etc).
I don't think anyone here considers polyamory disgusting - the debate is whether polygamy is a moral ideal (or, alternatively, monogamy). The Objectivist position is that one is [objectively] better than the other. Is it better to have multiple partners to fulfill your desires, or one person?
-
Can you explain this statement a little more please? Why is embarrassment over pregnancy relevant to whether or not someone should or should not be having sex? Maturity?
Sorry, perhaps I should've explained, but maturity is exactly right. I realize that these beliefs are mostly associated with religion, but regardless, I think if someone is mature enough to have sex, they're mature enough to think for themselves.
So I ask, how responsible would such women be regarding a rpegnancy, let alone having and raising a kid? For them abortion is likely the most responsible option available.While I understand your point, we've already established that the original mother doesn't have to raise the child. I don't really see this as relevant to whether or not abortion is a violation of human rights, because mothers who actually GIVE birth may still not be equipped to take care of their child, and killing their child would not be morally responsible.
It's not, morally, easily disposable. That's why I say it's a last resort. I do think a woman who can casually dispose of her fetus shows some general disregard for human life, but only some.So it seems that we both agree on this point, but it's still lacking specifics. When would it be okay, and when would it be immoral, for a woman to have an abortion (and why?). If a fetus were not a specifically human life, wouldn't this be a moot point?
-
Back in my sophomore year of high school, Imagine was one of my absolute favorite songs; now, however, I would say it's one of my least favorite Beatles songs (for obvious reasons).
I don't think the Beatles were very musically accomplished - although they tended to be good poets, sometimes.
As for my favorite Beatles songs, I love Here Comes the Sun, Hey Jude, Back in the USSR, ah... I can't list all of them.
-
I think I should clarify.
While abortions are routine and relatively simple procedures, they're not without risk. If things go wrong, the woman in question may imperil her ability to conceive in the future. And there may be emotional consequences even when thigns go right. There is a new life growing inside her that is not a clump of cells like a cyst, not emotionally it's not.
Therefore facing up to that is being responsible for one's actions.
BTW I think abortion should be used as a last resort only. Men and women are responsible for using contraception beforehand. Women are responsible for seeking remedies after if any are available (like the morning after pill). If all that fails and carrying a child to term is not in the woman's interest, then she can resort to an abortion.
Hm there is a difference between "facing consequences" and being "held responsible" for them. I'm asking why abortion is a responsible choice at all (I can only see it as such when a) a woman and man have taken proper preventative measures or
if the woman was raped). It has always been of some comfort to me to acknowledge that abortions ARE serious choices made by women and their doctors (not just last-minute solutions), but just because someone broods over something doesn't necessarily mean their decision is morally right. If given food he can eat...Another difference is anyone at all can care for a baby. A fetus can draw nourishment and oxygen only from the mother.A baby's ideal diet is still extremely selective... they can only eat certain foods, served in certain manners... I would venture to say that caring for a born baby requires more attention than caring for a fetus. And, again, I don't really see as only it's mother being able to care for it as a valid point for denying a fetus a chance at life if the mother took the risk of becoming impregnated in the first place. I guess I just don't see how these technicalities are relevant?
Not quite. It can also become a miscarried fetus. In rare instances involving conjoined twins, it can become body parts, too, or, more often, an incomplete human being incapable of surviving on his own.Hm, in the case of a miscarried fetus, it wouldn't be relevant. Actually, I don't think any of these would be very relevant. These babies would never have the ability to exercise human rights, and would probably die prematurely from other (predictable) complications. And regardless, they are uniquely human fetuses.
My stance has always been yours: "abortion should be used as a last resort only". Abortion is never good for a woman anyway (neither is the morning after pill, although I'll admit, I have used it in emergency). I'm really just trying to reason out what a legitimate reason for a woman to have an abortion is. If giving birth threatens the mother's life, I would DEFINITELY agree that the mother has every right to choose to abort the fetus. I guess I have a hard time admitting that a potential human is so easily disposable as someone being, say, financially unstable or embarrassed, especially when there are people willing to even pay the medical expenses for a baby, and when people who are embarrassed of pregnancy should not be having sex anyway (rape, of course, being the exception).
-
Hey - a fetus CAN exist outside the mother's body......several weeks before it is 'born' usually. Should there be another word to describe a fetus when it has reached the developmental stage where it can survive out of the womb? Do you have an argument for an abortion just minutes prior to natural delivery? i.e. woman's 'fetus' is at 40 weeks gestation, she is in labor, she decides she doesn't want to deal with the baby ruining her life, is this an appropriate time to choose to abort it? Should she have the right to about it at full gestation? Remember is has not been 'born' yet.
Agreed - if you search the forums, you will find a more elaborate answer to this question. But for a shortened version: Ayn Rand says that the abortion debate is really only applicable to the first trimester, since that is pretty much the only time during which legal abortions are administered, and there is a large difference between a fetus in the first trimester and one that is merely a few weeks away from birth.
No. Life is self-generated action. THAT is the fundamental difference between a fetus and a baby, and that is why killing a fetus is NOT infanticide.I would agree with Andre's answer on this. How is the parasitic lifestyle of a fetus any different from that of a baby's? Neither can survive without specific attention from a parent. A baby cannot provide its own food, nor can it shelter itself.
-
Right, I can't imagine being able to justify THAT. But even further, at some point, where the fetus becomes viable to live on its own, wouldn't an abortion be immoral?
I'm not at all familiar with the abortion procedure, but if they could get the fetus out without having to kill it, and it could live on its own, how could you justify killing it anyways?
I have never been clear on the issue of abortion anyway, as even a baby cannot technically "live" on its own either; its style of life is still parasitic, to some extent. Not only that, a woman chooses the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex, except in the case of rape (and, say, a broken condom, etc.); I don't see why she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions. At this point, I still consider myself pro-abortion (at least in the early stages of pregnancy, which is pretty much the only time it is safe for a mother), but I want clear answers from supporters. I have a hard time seing a fetus as nothing more than a cluster of cells/tissues; as far as I know, a fetus can ONLY become human. It may be in the same league as a cancer, but a cancer cannot develop into a conscious being.
-
I think the ability to reason is definitely a factor, because then there is no difference between an animal and a human baby. Both are alive, both lack rationality, except generally an animal can care for itself.
Of course there's a difference between an animal and a human baby! Babies have the potential to reason, they simply haven't developed matured reasoning skills. An individual animal does not have that potential. I always run into people who are confused on this point. I don't think that rationality gives one the right to life - I think the ability to reason gives us the right to life.
That said, I agree with both what DarkWaters says - a couple who makes the conscious decision to have a child has the responsibility to raise the child until he/she can care for himself.
I also have to agree with David, especially as it applies to old people. You don't choose your parents - you aren't required to take care of them when they get older. They should be allowed the right to earn enough money throughout their lifetime to retire into a special home for elderly care, but they aren't entitled to their children's time.
-
Doesn't it devalue the dollar to print money from thin air? Maybe it's better to convert all your money to gold before people get their refund checks; then, as the value of the dollar drops, you would effectively be getting interest relative to the US economy. Or am I talking out of my ass?
This is what I've been considering as well. You're right - it definitely devalues the dollar, and it's really scary to think that our money will eventually be worth NOTHING. I've actually talked with my boyfriend about investing in gold, but I'd be really careful to ensure that the gold I bought was real.
-
I hate the term "narcissist" - it attempts to extinguish any reason that a person might have of being proud of their accomplishments, with uses of words like "grandiose" and "fantasies". As if none of these people achieved greatness in their fields (Picasso is debatable)? I don't consider it a valid mental disorder, because as we all know, people are only lonely when they (and those around them) have are convinced that being social is inherently important.
-
Being subtle does not mean that the artist hides his meaning in any literal sense; rather he "camouflages" it, by means of symbolism and metaphor (and perhaps other devices). It is a talent on behalf of the artist when he succeeds in preserving the meaning uncorrupted within the "camouflage", and this enchances the viewers' appreciation of the artist and his work if and when he understands it.
My question is, do you value subtlety in any work of art, and what are your reasons?
Hm, I think subtlety is a bit more complex than that - I do agree that it "camouflages", in a sense, but not solely through metaphors and symbolism, which I consider more obvious/trite forms of subtlety.
Subtlety extends to implied action and thought - as you mentioned, "showing" and not "telling". One of the more recent works of literature that I've read that has utterly mastered subtlety was Atonement by Ian McEwan. In one particular scene (one of the most beautiful I've read in all of literature), the two protagonists are irritated with each other, and end up breaking a family heirloom out of carelessness, sending a large chunk of it to the bottom of a deep fountain. The woman removes her clothes and dives to the bottom of the fountain to retrieve the chunk, and after surfacing, stomps off to repair the vase. The man is left speechless.
Her action implied several things - most obviously, her intent to prove to him that she wasn't a sensitive, weak rich girl. Additionally, she was also attempting to shame him. But most importantly, and more subtly, she was provoking him sexually (and their attraction to each other is unveiled a few chapters later).
Her intents were not expressly stated, but you had to piece them together based on the information you were given - they were both adults, they were frustrated at their awkwardness around each other, and they were male and female.
I hope you understand what I'm getting at - and obviously, my description does NO justice to McEwan's art. Incidentally, it's one of the most misleading and disgusting books I've read, but the language was so beautiful that I was able to justify the time I spent on it.
Oops, forgot to add: I think it takes a lot of strength as a writer to effectively write subtlety in a novel, and I admire any time it's done well. I think the technique is easily abused, though, especially through metaphors, which I think often APPEAR complex because of their cultural ties, but are really just trite - especially the use of colors, animals, and flora.
Also meant to add: Subtlety and "showing" are not the same thing, as someone said above. I think subtlety is a form of showing, though.
-
I have read the manga. The first half of the series is excellent. It gets progressive more banal as the series went on.
Agreed. Halfway through is about when I quit reading. The anime seemed to ignore the morality/thought processes behind the characters, and as usual, I found myself preferring the manga more.
-
Perfectly irrelevant factoid: Cheney was in fact President (Acting President, to be precise) twice: On June 29, 2002 from 7:29am to 9:24am (EDT), and on July 21, 2007 from 7:16am to 9:21am (EDT). On both occasions, GWB was getting a colonoscopy, and officially handed power over to Cheney under Sec.3 of Amend.XXV.
Further perfectly irrelevant factoid: Someone made a mockumentary depicting the assassination of GWB on October 19, 2007. Produced in Britain in 2006 - Death of a President. Several large American cinema chains refused to book the film, and its release in the US was extremely limited.
~Q
I remember the buzz that surrounded this movie, and remember thinking that it sounded really sensationalist, without any intellectual contributions.
I would chalk up the amount of failed assassinations to the security surrounding Bush; an old roommate of mine remembers being stopped in traffic for hours in LA while the highways were shut down to allow Bush & his bodyguards sole passage.
-
Wow, I hadn't seen this documentary - thanks for posting!
What Bob says is regretfully true, but I disagree that there is little good in Dawkins' "preaching". Although Rand said the exact same thing years before, not everyone finds Rand first. Rand has allowed many people to work through the philosophy of reason, and Dawkins, an extremely talented writer (in my opinion) has the potential to do the same (I would be surprised to hear that he hadn't "converted" many thus far.) As a person who was irrational before reading Rand (granted, I had to be at least slightly rational to understand her ideas), I can safely say that people CAN change.
I've also noticed that Dawkins particularly emphasizes the evil of the irrational. Many of the atheists and rational people that I know "open-mindedly" accept other religion, and refuse to touch on the topic, passively saying people are entitled to their own opinions (we all know this story). While I agree that force should never be used to convert people to atheism (or any way of thinking), I don't ever think it should be something that is passively accepted. I think there is much that a rational person can gain from Dawkins' argument, especially in this respect.
Not ground-breaking, I agree, but still refreshing to hear. It's so comforting to know that there are people in the world, albeit only a few, who are guided only by reason.
-
I agree that chance is one of the worst things that could happen to any work of fiction. It's what ruined the Spiderman movie for me, besides, you know, the entire altruism thing.
But you haven't listed any situation that's ruled by chance.
(I think a mod already said we didn't have to use the spoiler tag this far along in the thread? Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll fix it.)
Right from the beginning things are just happening to Harry Potter. His decision to not kill or stun Stan Shunpike (which almost costs him his and Hagrid's life) is a purely emotional one. His whole insecurity about Dumbledore in the beginning just because he read an article and pieces of a book written by a known hype-rouser and well, liar - showing him as totally immature and irrational. But this is just the beginning.Harry CHOOSES not to kill Stan because he knows Stan's under the Imperius curse. At the same time, however, Harry's scolded for his hesitation by Remus when they arrive at the Weasley's, so it's not as if he gets away with it.
But later when he gives the Black locket to Kreacher, Kreacher "reforms". I just couldn't believe that scene. So an elf who has helped in the murder of Sirius Black suddenly is friendly towards a Half-Blood and a Muggle Born after an entire life of hatred towards them? And that too after he has been given a locket belonging to a family which worshipped pure-blood?Kreacher is friendly to them precisely because they gave him the locket. Note: he also decides to help them after Harry says that it would help Kreacher's favorite master, Regulus. The change was, admittedly, a little too sudden, but it wasn't unwarranted.
Moving on towards the infiltration of the Ministry of Magic by Harry et al. Harry manages to get the locket and escape the Ministry of Magic by stunning Umbridge and Yaxley. But he doesn't do it to get the locket. Oh no, he does it because he's feeling angry that Umbridge is shouting at the woman. Everything is caused by feelings and instincts (a fact repeatedly emphasized throughout the book) and not on the basis of reason. That Harry manages to escape is purely chance - a coincident because Harry is not you know setting a goal and working towards it. Everything is working randomly in the favor of Harry. BTW, what's even more outrageous about this scene is that the only reason they get into trouble is because Harry took Mad-eye's eye from Umbridge's door. I mean how could he risk the success of the mission and the lives of the muggle-borns in the building (I thought he was supposed to be a selfless altruist?)? And what's his reason? He felt like it (Actual words are "He couldn't just leave it there").Once again, everything you listed here was based on a choice that Harry made. You say it was made on emotion, but that's discrediting why he feels that way. He respected Mad-Eye and abhorred the idea of Umbridge keeping his eye on her door. He detested what Umbridge stood for, and championed that which Mad-Eye did. It wasn't a matter of, "His eye doesn't look right here," it was a matter of, "his eye doesn't BELONG here."
As for saving the mudbloods, I think it's a grave generalization to say that Harry did it for altruistic reasons. Harry did it because he couldn't bear the thought of anyone DYING because they were wrongly accused for crimes they didn't commit. The word "instinct" here is a misnomer. Even Ayn Rand admits that when one is so in-touch with their philosophy, the decisions they make almost seem "instinctive". You can read about this in OPAR.
Harry goes to Godric's hollow and his wand breaks. Why does he go to the Hollow - not because he has to find the Horcrux, no Voldemort is going to relax and wait until Harry makes him mortal again and then is going to commit suicide or so Harry thinks. I mean he doesn't even acknowledge the danger of the situation he is in - no concentration on what his goal should be AT ALL. He goes to Hollow just to see his parents' graves - doesn't matter that he could have asked Dumbledore to take him there when Dumbledore was alive or he could have gone there after defeating Voldemort. And what's the purpose of the Hollow? Apparently just to malign Dumbledore and get Harry's wand broken.Harry admits and is ashamed that his only motivation for returning to Godric's Hollow is to see his parents. In fact, he hides this from Hermione, who knows that they have VALID REASONS to be there. And it doesn't turn out to be a pointless visit - it's during this time that Hermione retrieves a copy of Dumbledore's biography, which provides them with Deathly Hallows leads.
Going on to the recovery of the Gryffindor sword. How does Harry retrieve the sword? Not because of his own thinking and actions but because Snape is kind enough to virtually give it to him. And then Ron just happens to arrive to save him. And then he asks Ron to break the Horcrux because of instinct (the word is explicitly mentioned in the novel). And then JKR had to add the Riddle-Harry and Riddle-Hermione kissing at which point I'm starting to think I'm reading a very badly written and cliched fan fiction influenced by C.S. Lewis rather than an actual Harry Potter book.You're ignoring huge answers that Rowling gives to your questions. Ron finds them by using the Deluminator that Dumbledore gave him. Snape has been working for Dumbledore all along, and his job was to DELIVER THE SWORD TO HIM.
And after this how does Harry find the rest of the horcruxes? Well because Voldemort apparently forgot there was a connection between his and Harry's brain and simply recited the locations of the horcruxes. It was so poorly plotted and so anti-climactic. This is a problem that runs along the entire book as I've shown above. Every problem, every situation is resolved by an act of God where the God can be chance or Dumbledore.This is a huge misrepresentation. Harry discovers only ONE of the horcruxes this way, and it's the Ravenclaw one (which, Harry decides, should have been obvious all along). He discovers the teacup because Bellatrix goes postal when she suspects they've been in her vault. Dumbledore had also suspected that Nagini was a horcrux since the sixth book.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest. None of these are chance whatsoever.
-
I agree that this was the best of the five movies. I think the acting, for one, improved immensely, and I think I've finally gotten used to the idea that the movie characters are bound to be different than the book ones.
Considering the fifth book was the longest as well, I think the screenplay writer did a good job of selecting which things to include and which to eliminate (minus a few nit-picks I have). I think they generally included all of the essentials that crop up later in the sixth and seventh books, but the movies are made for people who've read the books anyway.
An interesting fact: the scenes that took place in the Department of Mysteries were constructed entirely using CG, making it the first COMPLETELY computerized set ever. I thought it looked beautiful!
I shelled out 11$ to see it at the IMAX, and have to say that it was completely worth it. I watched it a few days later on a normal theater screen, and the difference in quality is enormous.
-
I saw the movie and was pleasantly surprised. Although I love Pixar's other movies, (I've only seen part of Cars, but I didn't find it interesting in the least) I think Ratatouille is my absolute favorite. I couldn't stop talking about this movie for days after I saw it.
I read this awful editorial in the New York Times (I can't find it online, though) that accused Ratatouille of "discrimination" against, essentially, bottom-feeders (people who chose not to indulge in good things). While I think the New York Times is right, the writer of the article seemed to consider this the movie's weak point, while I considered this its virtue. One of Ratatouille's largest themes was that talent was universal and could come from anywhere. In other words, it stripped thieves and "looters", as Rand would call them, of an excuse to "scrape by" in life without ever seeking something better. Essentially, it said that no one had to live like a rat if they chose not to, and naturally, people are angered by that.
-
People shouldn't criticize so much about structure and writing styles unless they've written a book.
Hm, by this logic, people can't praise books either unless they've written one. Certainly one needs to understand the principles of good writing in order to offer a worthwhile criticism of a book/work of literature, but I don't think they need to have written a book.
The general fandom consensus is that this book takes place in1997-1998.
This is based off of Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party. If there's another way to derive a date, I haven't yet found it.
Also, Lily and James died in 81, which means Harry was born in 1980 (he was 1 at the time of their death). Deathly Halllows would've taken place probably during 1997.
-
Anyone have any thoughts on these questions?
It's difficult to say what the apparitions are... whether they're figments of his imagination or actually spirits. It's also strange (and worth looking into) why the apparitions, for the first time in the book series, appear so young. I don't think Rowling ever explicitly states the answer, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight on this?
As for Dumbledore... I don't think he was conditioning Harry for death. Dumbledore's knowledge of the Horcruxes comes fairly late in the series, and though it's impossible to say when, I would say it happened between the times that the fifth and sixth books take place (the time when he discovers the ring). I think the journal in the second book might've been the first time he suspected it, but he admits in the sixth book that he knows little more than Harry does. I think the fact that Harry might have to "sacrifice" himself was a hunch.
I think in the first four books he genuinely sought to protect and educate Harry, knowing that he would have to fight Voldemort, but not necessarily die. That's at least what I guessed.
-
I'm actually surprised at the number of people who found the ending to be altruistic... obviously there were altruistic undertones, but Harry was protecting people he loved (Moose points this out above).
I think he realized he could die a victim, or otherwise die trying for people he loved - people who had created a "home" for him.
As for Ron, it says in the book that his feelings were amplified by the locket (though he'd originally held those feelings before). I'm not justifying his actions, but neither does Rowling (see: Hermione's anger at Ron).
One of the largest disappointments of the book was, in my opinion, Dumbledore's past obsession with power. A lot of people argue in defense of Dumbledore's "humanity", but we've all heard this argument before. Personally it sort of wrecked my image of him (or at the very least, put a dent in it). I found in an inessential plot point, and think Rowling could've justified Dumbledore's desire for the Elder Wand with a more justifiable (and by this, I also mean a more in-character) reason.
-
I wonder what Dr. Peikoff would say about O'bama, especially considering how adamant his stance is that O'ists should vote Democrat. It seems to be that O'bama would be a combination of the worst aspects of both. Not only an altruist, socialist, but a theocrat in some sense. The prospect of him winning disturbes me. He speaks well! That's it! I find it very frustrating that this is the only criteria by which he remains a contender in the polls. (Today they announced he's neck and neck with Hillary). He has no experience, just a nice suit, and a good voice...
What would Peikoff suggest? If O'bama wins the primary. We know he's religious, and a socialist? I think that the global statement that voting left is the best way to go should be reevaluated by Dr. Peikoff, especially given that the Dems are going to try to use their religion to woe the voters in swing states that might be religious!
I think Peikoff's stance would remain the same unless the Democratic Party, as someone mentioned (as opposed to their foremost candidate) changed their fundamental philosophy. I can certainly see this happening, but I doubt it would be a permanent transformation. True, a lot of Republicans refuse to vote democratic based on single, religious issues, but the Democrats have very minimal persuading to do since the war in Iraq has been such a flop.
I find it scary, too, that someone with relatively little political experience has achieved such a large amount of success. He's become a very trendy candidate among college students - as one, I've seen this first hand. I hear everyone drop his name, yet hardly anyone that I've asked can describe his political platform/ideology to me.
Morality of Trans-genderism
in Ethics
Posted
100+ years? It's taken far less than a century to get as far as we have, and that's with our current technology. And by the way: what is your standard? Because to me, a woman is distinguished from a man by: a) her reproductive organs
her hormones, how they function differently from a male's (psychology) and c) her behaviors (anywhere from peeing sitting down to getting out of a car without showing anything under your skirt).
Your answer has only assumed that sexual transformation is impossible, which I think is ignoring how far science has come in even the past couple of decades.