Peripeteia

I think it's interesting. You've put a lot of effort into it. I'm writing a book myself involving the Presidency. From your imagery, in my mind, Derrik Veola looks like Lucius Malfoy with Harry's green eyes. Is this similar to how you imagine him? I have one critsism - you keep switching between past and present tense. Stick to one. I have one suggestion, and it is completely up to you to take it or ignore it. Perhaps you could feature the 45th President (I hope it's not Palin) in a "passing the torch" kind of scene, and elaborate on the election. Will the loophole be shown later on? Keep up the good work! I hope it turns out well!

Physical torture would include acts such as fingernail removal, reopening old scars, crushed glass in the eye, amputations, etc. Mental torture would include sleep or sensory deprivation, pharmalogical torture, and listening to Vogon poetry. I consider some atrocities, such as rape, to count as both. I consider torture to be among the most terrible inventions of mankind. If we torture, we are stooping down to the level of our enemies, and we can lose our sense who we are. (Imagine if Batman went down to the Joker's level as Two-Face had in The Dark Knight). However, if for example, thousands of lives are at stake, althogh I consider it to be immoral, torture may be necessary (as the lesser of two evils) to prevent the loss of life, and the best method for this would be mental. Using evil to fight evil is itself evil. Jake Ellison - for most fanatics, they would be willing to die for their cause in the hope of becoming seen as a martyr, rather than tell the truth. And many times, physical torture can lead to false answers. For example - when the Black Death was rampant, many people (especially Jews) were tortured into admitting that they cursed everyone else or started the plague with dark magic, etc.

What is your opinion of torture, physical and mental?

I was just wondering if importanceofphilosophy.com is affiliated with this site or ARI. If it is, on their page discussing roads and infrastructure, http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_R...astructure.html, they complain about how too many people are dependent on government operated roads, and then they just leave it at that without offering any solutions to their problem, and go on to say how roads would be operated if they had always been privately owned. Would someone be able to pick up where they left off?

Rational Biker - The results that I refer to include the current riot in Tehran, protesting the botched and stolen election. The results do not need to be exclusively what Ahmadinejad says (read - lies about). Jake Ellison - I did not say that only bin Laden and Ahmadinejad should be punished, but their followers as well. However, any innocents who do not share their terrorist worldview should not recieve punishment.

Time and space are certainly relative. I reccomend reading The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, or, better yet, Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory. I enjoyed them both immensely.

softwareNerd - Many Southern slaveholders believed that Lincoln would take away their slaves. SD26 - They certainly did. However, the Jim Crow laws and terrorists such as the KKK sought to reassert dominance over former slaves, and made the problem worse. With a truly United country, tragedies such as 9/11 became national trgedies, not sectional ones. Prior to the Civil War, the average person would see their home state as their country (Lee refused Lincoln's request to head the Union armies because he did not want to fight Virginia, which he saw as his country), and the United States was referred to in the plural (these United States) Sectionalism, even early on, threatened to pull us apart. For example - until Washington took command, the Revolution was widely regarded as New England's war, not the war of thirteen colonies.

Jake - If it were in my power to punish them, I certainly would. Currently, my words are the only means of fighting them that I have, with all the effectiveness of chopping down a tree with dental floss.

Initially, slavery was a minor cause of the Civil War. The main cause was the South's belief that Lincoln wanted to destroy them, and take away their percieved rights. It was about whether the Union was or was not indivisible. As the war progressed, it eventually became a crusade against slavery. Althogh it was the bloodiest, most terrible war in our history, and our greatest national nightmare, it produced two major benifets, and one major, horrible drawback. The drawback was the Jim Crow laws and the decades of racism, bigotry, and hatred that followed. The benefits were, firstly, the eradication of slavery, and secondly, it ended the petty sectionalism that had plagued us since 1776 and we became a truly United States of America.

FieldMarshal - Perhaps it is best spoken by the Dark Knight himself - "If you're going to point a gun, point it at the people responsible." If a war is indeed necessary, there is no sense in murdering innocents. If the hateful son-of-a-bitches (pardon my language, but they deserve it) Ahmadinejad or bin Laden wish to kill us, only them and the others who also wish to kill us should be punished. As an example- if a man attempts to blow up a marketplace, (hope such a thing never happens), his neighbors, who do not share his hatred, should not share punishment. Just my views and some words of wisdom from the Caped Crusader. On the topic of anarchy - since there will always be violence and theft, governments and rules are necessary to prevent as much harm as possible, and to provide people with differing views a way to make descisions. We can never eradicate ourselves of evil, so we, the people, deem government and a set of rules as necessary to constantly fight it, protect us, and keep evil at bay. Imagine what damage the Unabomer could have achieved with no force able to stop him. Anarchy = Joker. DavidOdden - Only when the results of the election become known will we see what the people of Iran desire most - peace and progress or hatred and denial. I hope for the former.

DavidOdden - A simple 'no' would have done just as well. Could you plaese elaborate, so that I may be able to answer and reply to your satisfaction. I would appreciate it very much. Jake Ellison - Take a deep breath, and we can continue without either of us regressing to the petty and sarcastic tones of an 8 year old. I was not confusing building the phonograph with inventing it. Natives had certainly heard of profit. Trade couldn't have been conducted if they did not understand profit. Am I correct in abandoning all hope of a reply in the 'Who has been Violated' topic? Other than that, thank you for the explanation, Messrs. Edison and Ellison. Thales - Thank you for your elaboration, and now I see that the phonograph needed much more to be invented than I had originally thought. My bad. I too am a fan of Faraday. Althogh the Greeks were pioneers in the secular world view, there were plenty of Greeks who used myth to explain their world. However, my question was not whether Native Americans could have built the phonograph, but whether if a society had invented any non-writing system of recordind informaton, would that society be considered advanced? For example - If the Inca quipu had indeed been used to store verbal information or ideas (I am aware of the fact that there is no evidence for this), or if similar invention to store verbal info. or ideas was used by another society. Now that that mess is behind us, what do you define as 'savage'?

DavidOdden - I was asking question. A string of petty retorts was not required. Everyone else - Thank you for posting.

Jake Ellison - It appears that I must be absolutely clear when I talk. Glass-clear will simply not do. A complete understanding of predictive physics pertaining to space and time is not required to build a phonograph. The chain listed by DavidOdden is simply not necessary to build a phonograph. At no point did I say that the United States is built on genocide and stolen lands. And there have been broken and botched treaties. That is not dispariging, it is sad, but it is a fact. Appreciating and respecting Native cultures still does not require the disparagement or dismissal of the rest of the world. Was my answer on the lawspeaker topic sufficient? I invite you to answer my question in the "Who has been Violated?" topic. DavidOdden - Do you have any answers for my questions? I would like to continue.

JJJJ - I did not use the words "tribal" or "savage" in my post, and I did not say that a Native philosopher would have arisen as a result of his or her culture. To build a phonograph, one would first need to understand what sound is. That is true. Physics, however, is not a requirement. How, in your view, would such a philosopher not have been a Native philosopher, if he/she recieved no inspiration from Europe or Asia? Appreciating and respecting Native cultures does not require disparaging Western cultures and achievements.

What is your view of fire departments? I personally believe in a public fire department system, similar to public libraries. If you believe in a private fire department, how would such a system work? What is the Objectivist stance, if there is one?

Jake Ellison - No need to be rude. Will A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones suffice? DavidOdden - You have reached a false conclusion. My point was that the first philosoper had no previous philosophers to draw inspiration from. The first Native philosopher (you dubbed him Tonto) would have been able to come about in the same way that the first philosopher in human history had, by asking questions about himself and his world (Why am I here?, Is there a purpose to life?, etc.) and attempting to answer them. In an earlier post, you stated that you did not see how a Native philosopher could have arisen without introduction of Western ideas, and this is my response. What is it about Jared Diamond books that irritate you? I personally enjoy them. No, they are not my sole resivoirs of knowledge. What exactly do you mean by Western culture (Irish, German, Canadian, Croatian?) and what aspects of Native culture do you find inferior? (culinary skills?). Perhaps if I knew exactly what you are referencing, I would be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. Why do you view the broken treaties between Native groups and the United States as irrelevant? I have set forth my arguments in this post, from the points that I have set forth in said post, just as I have in every one of my posts in this topic. Each of my questions is a point, and the first sentence adressed to you in this post is a point. Marc K. - It is my belief (supported by a lack of evidence to the contrary) that my experience is representative of reality. I have seen no evidence that we are part of the Matrix. My point was that Jake Ellison should not have so readily doubted the existence of lawspeakers.

JakeEllison - I know this fact to be true because I do not share your contempt and suspicion of everything that is not the product of the modern United States, and because I also happen to be literate. They were first written down around the 1200's, not the 2000's. I would assume that cheating may have occured, however, just as cheating occurs in written law. The office of lawspeaker continued to exist after the introduction of writing. If you wish to get into a fact-proving contest, please prove to me, as you have consistantly claimed, that throughout the entire Western Hemisphere there were only simple tribes, populated by primitive and brutal savages, in spite of my repeated evidence to the contrary. For that matter, prove to me that you are real, and not a figment of my imagination, kept alive by a vast conspiracy. Then I'll believe your existence. I reccomend a trip to the local (or even regional) library for further evidence of the lawspeakers' existence. Maximus explains it nicely.

In my opinion, it is simply stupid to put something in your body that will cause harm, whether it be liver, lung, or brain damage. I would think that any risk of damaging vital organs vastly outweighs any benefits the drug may have. Alcohol appears to be fine in moderation. Although, since I am under 21, I haven't had much experience with alcohol and cannot say I know its full effects firsthand. I would assume hangovers are unpleasant. Any thoughts or feelings that a person has on a mind-altering drug are not truly his thoughts or feelings. It distorts the mind. A person is just as able to realize and discover things while he is able to to hold a conversation and be a rational human being. To those who have tried it, is alcohol an aquired taste? Every time I've tried it, it has left a nasty, burning taste in my mouth.

DaveOdden- One does not need Aristotle, Aquinas, or Locke to be a philosopher. Philosophy, as with art, is not exclusive to a single group or culture. Tonto here could have begun the way the first Greek philosopher had, by using his brain. You are correct in stating that Sequoyah drew inspiration for his remarkable syllabary from the West, but it was not entirely of the West. He borrowed many symbols from the English alphabet, but since he did not know their meaning, he devised new meanings for them. His system was designed for the Cherokee language and Cherokee sounds. It is not entirely the product of the West or the Cherokee, but of both, a blend. One does not need advanced mathematics to know what sound is. We are able to manipulate something, even if we do not completely understand what it is. For example- ancient peoples did not know what fire truly was, but they were able to use it. What good is your philosophy, or for that matter, thinking at all, if you do not use it by testing it with senarios, arbitrary or not? The question remains: would you consider such a society to be advanced? During the Viking era, prior to the introduction of writing, there was the office of Lawspeaker thrughout Scandinavia. A lawspeaker's job, as you may have guessed, was to memorize the law, including new laws, as well as to act as a judge.

Before Lincoln, we were known as these United States. It is only after him that we truly became the United States. Because of his actions, the Republic endured, and slavery perished. That is the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

Jake Ellison - By no means was I speculating on what I falsely believed you had said. Rather, I was attempting to fit your explanation into an example entirely of my own invention. Obviously, it was a poor (and evidently confusing) descision on my part. However, I do realize now that perhaps it would have been better if I had used your example, so I shall use the tribe. When you say that the tribe does something evil, do you mean that the tribe's government and leaders performed the atrocity, or that each and every person in that tribe did the evil act?

Welcome, Andrew!!!! I would like to wish you a very Happy Birthday, whenever it may be!!! I've been to Connecticut before. Vey nice state!!

DaveOdden- The words themselves were not vague, but what exactly you were refering to was. If you said that their culinary skills were inferior, that is an opinion, and up to considerable debate. However, if f you said that their artillery skills were inferior, since, as far as I know, there was no Native catapults or other forms of artillery, then it is a fact. Are you saying that upon a culture's adoption of an aspect of another culture, it ceases to exist, becoming, to various degrees, a new, blended culture? If this is indeed, the case, then no culture truly survives for any duration, becoming a new one with each exchange of ideas across the cultures. Do you believe in this concept? If, for some reason, in a certain culture, writing was never developed, but a different system of recording information had developed (such as sound recording), would you consider that society to be advanced. Oral tradition and law, and to a certain extent, pictograms, although much less efficient than writing, are still able to preserve multiple values. And how could no comparable system of philosophy have arisen? No one thinks about nothing. Roads and art do not require the invention of writing. Thales- What is your definition of 'savage'?

You're very welcome, Dr.! Good Luck with journalism!!

Jake Ellison- Would you say that a parent does not love their newborn child?