Subject: Yeah, but...
Author:
Posted on: 2015-05-12 18:58:00 UTC
I don't like how, for the most part, the news only tells you about the bad things that happen in the world. Some people think that the world is worse than it is because their newspapers only focus on crime or real-world horror stories or something.
And honestly, I used to be one of those people.
Hi, I'm Alleb. I already made a post just below this one, but instead of formally introducing myself I jumped straight into a a question. Hence this.
Hi, I'm Alleb. Formally.
Iximaz was kind enough to give me this shrieking hummingbird and urple bow, both of which I shall treasure to the end of my days. On a side note, Huinesoron, I deeply apologize- I spelled your name wrong in my original post. So very sorry sir!
I'm a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, though I could be better on my Silmarillion knowledge (all the names of the battles go in one ear and out the other). I also enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia, the works of Brandon Sanderson, and the Lunar Chronicles. I hope to become more involved with the PPC in the future, and I'm very glad to have found this community!
Welcome to the board! I quite like your taste in things. And I enjoyed your post to which hS replied regarding the 10th Walker issue and how to do it well!
Tell me, now, what was it that got you into Sanderson?
That'd be my family- someone was reading it, and then everyone else started, then it came to me and now I'm obsessed XD What's your favorite book of his? I like Warbreaker a lot, but if I had to pick I'd say Elantris. Maybe the Stormlight Archive. Maybe.. Well, I like all of his stuff!
I personally have a huge weakness towards the Mistborn books. And the Reckoners series as well!
Were I not so busy with things as far as real life goes, I would be heavily considering creating a Misting agent.
His short stories are also very excellent.
Anyone else you read?
That would be awesome! I don't read many modern authors- Brandon Sanderson is just about it. I do like the Marissa Meyer. She writes this really awesome series called the Lunar Chronicles- they're futuristic retellings of classic fairy tales. Like Cinderella is called Cinder, and she's a cyborg mechanic. Love those books. I love his short stories too- have you read I Hate Dragons? It's on his author page, and it's SUPER funny.
What about you- what do you like to read?
I read nearly everything and everyone that catches my eye- I actually have the first book on my phone, saved for a later time.
But honestly, hard science fiction, soft science fiction, fantasy, urban fantasy, et al. Suspecting that you enjoyed the Mistborn books might I suggest Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series?
And I hear the catch- 'modern'. Who do you read, then?
Tolkien and Lewis, of course- a few miscellaneous Christian YA authors and adult Christian authors- Monster by Frank Peretti is one of the first books I remember intensely loving (I suppose all of those count as modern, but I just read the stock I have instead of keeping up with them, so I didn't count them..). I've gotten behind, but I'm reading the Lord Peter Whimsey series. Have you read To Say Nothing of the Dog? AWESOME time travel book. I falsely categorized myself with 'modern'- I meant authors that are currently alive, active, and coming out with new books, like Brandon Sanderson, as versus, say, Robert Jordan (I really liked his stuff, but I had to stop reading- they simply got too violent.)Also, it's only been rather recently that I've started finding new authors, so I'm used to identifying myself solely by Tolkien and Lewis.
Overall I'm a fantasy nerd- occasionally I'll read a bit of science fiction or mystery.
What is the Codex Alera series about? It sounds interesting!
Could you recommend some good urban fantasy? I like the sound of the genre, but I haven't read much of it.
That is pretty good. If you like Peretti's style I might recommend House: The Only Way Out is In by Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti. Though If I recall there probably is some harsh language. And thematically it might not be perfect for you. But it is a good read. And if you like that kind of genre you might want to check out some of Stephen King's work. Though I will say that those are targeted at an adult audience and often have strong language and certain thematic elements that you might take issue with. If you are interested in Stephen King, I might recommend Cell. I do not recall any substantial language, though it is probably there, and I do not recall any problematic themes.
It was the first book I ever read that made me want to forget the plot, so I could read it all over again. I think I might own House actually, but I don't think I've read it. The language surprises me; I know Peretti is a Christian author, and I thought Dekker was as well. But then, not all Christians take the same Puritan stance that I do XD
I think Stephen King might be a bit.. much for me. I know he's a great author, but straight-up horror isn't really my cup of tea. Monster had its scary moments, but I wouldn't call it horror. Thanks for the suggestion, though!
If House had language issues or not. It is not something I pay attention to, but it might, so I figured I would err on the side of caution. And not everything Stephen King does is horror. There is The Eyes of the Dragon which is low fantasy.
Lets see, some other recommendations that I would make. I am going to assume you have probably read the Left Behind series. If not, from what I understand, it seems right up your alley. I also recommend 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami to anyone looking to expand their horizons. Though I cannot remember if there was language issues or not, and it might thematically be inappropriate for your tastes. It has been a while since I read it and I only vaguely remember the first half, but violence does have a role in it. However, it is a phenomenal novel. If you are looking for a challenge you might also consider Les Miserables by Victor Hugo.
I do not know anything about it, but I have friends that really enjoy The Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare, but I know nothing of it other than the name, and I think it is generically categorized as "Urban Fantasy". The only other urban fantasy I am familiar with is Anita Blake, but I am certain that that is not going to be for you. It has very strong language and as a whole the story itself could be classified as NSFW.
Anything else you are particularly interested in?
It's QUITE good; thank you! No language yet, other than the semi-appropriate use of the h-word.
What's 1Q84 about? I should probably read Les Miserables. I've seen one of the older, non-musical adaptations, but that's it.
I've actually read the first TMI book- it had a bit too much language for my tastes. It wasn't so much quantity as.. quality? Strength is a better term. Nothing so bad as the F-word, but practically everything else, I think. Which is a shame, because I really enjoyed the story. It was innovative and original, and the characters were good.
Anything fantasy, really, as long as it's fairly clean. I read a *little* sci-fi, but not much. Mysteries are lots of fun; and time travel books! What about you ?
1Q84 is similar to George Orwell's 1984. But it is basically an alternate universe with some dystopian influences. But now as I reread a summary of the plot, it looks like it may not be appropriate for you. So for now, until I get the chance to reread the whole novel, you can disregard it as a suggestion.
If you like Time Travel stories, then The Time Machine by HG Wells is required. It is the original. Anything by HG Wells or Jules Verne is good. Lets see, as for fantasy, I cannot really recommend anything, because most of what I read I already know will be objectionable. Except maybe the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini. But many people here find it poorly written, I do not because I think it is well suited for its target audience. Its plot draws heavily from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.
As for me? Well I like a little bit of everything. I am generally willing to read anything once, except for Twilight. The idea of sparkly vampires is just wrong. But to kind of show what I like I think I will just give a list of some of what I read.
1.Moby Dick, Herman Melville
2.Dracula, Bram Stoker
3.Cujo, Stephen King
4.The Warlord Chronicles, Bernard Cornwell
5.A Song of Fire and Ice, George RR Martin
6.Les Miserables, Victor Hugo
7.Lord of the Rings, Tolkien
8.The Thrawn Trilogy, Timothy Zahn. Probably the best Star Wars EU stories out there.
9.Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
10.Crime and Punishment Fyodor Dostoyevsky
And there are many others. But right now my biggest genres that I read (when I have the time) tend to be Dark Fantasy or Gothic Horror, but as I said, I am willing to read anything really at least once. Some genres I have read in are Fantasy, Science Fiction, Gothic Horror, Psychological Thrillers, Military Political Thrillers, and the list goes on.
I've been meaning to get around to some Wells; I have a few of his works lying around.
You've got eclectic taste- that's awesome! I should really broaden the scope of what I read; right now, my tastes are pretty limited. Have you ever read To Say Nothing of the Dog? It's a time travel book; hilarious and well-written. The first chapter or so is a bit odd, but once the plot gets going it's beautiful. (By the way, I apologize for my lack of italicized titles. I haven't looked up how to italicize on here yet)
I think you like slightly heavier stuff than I do, so I don't think I can do much to return your awesome favor of book recommendations :( You might like Brandon Sanderson, though. I don't know if you've heard of him or not; he's a fantasy author, probably best known for his Mistborn trilogy, which is VERY good. I heartily recommend him.
First to do italics, to open and to close it. Just make sure that there is no space after the <.>
I have not read To Say Nothing of the Dog. I do not much care for a lot of time travel stories. It is too easy to get it wrong. I may have heard of Sanderson in passing. And as I said, I basically will read anything once, or at least try, so I do go all over the place.
If I recall you mentioned you were interested in doing your own writing. Do you have a particular genre you write in? Like my reading interests my writing is also all over the place. Off the top of my head I've written Low Dark Fantasy with a touch of Gallows Humor, "Soft" Science Fiction, Psychological Horror (one of the few times I consider what I wrote a complete failure), Gothic Urban Horror, Military Political Thriller, and a Metafiction Comedy (also a disaster).
That'll be handy.
I write in fantasy; that's all so far. I'd like to write in different genres eventually. At least one mystery, some sci-fi, a zombie novel (strange ambition of mine), a western, and a time travel story. You have quite a nice list there; if I may ask, what length do you prefer? I'm attempting to write full books, but I'm a slow author.
Short stories, typically 15-30 pages in length. Ultimately I have not had the time to dedicate to longer work. In August I should finally be able to start real work on anything longer.
I should probably try a shorter length so I can actually get something done, but I like the idea of writing a full-length book.
And then eventually move on to longer things.
Check out Charles de Lint. He writes some of the most amazing short stories I've ever read, and has some really beautiful things to say about writing and the world in general.
I also recommend Sherri S. Tepper, who is hard to classify. Wikipedia says she writes "feminist science fiction" with an "ecofeminist slant," but I personally think that's an oversimplification. She's a philosopher, if you ask me. She thinks about things from a different perspective, and shows them to you, and by the time you're done you're not quite sure which way is up anymore. That's why I like her so much. {= )
~Neshomeh
I love finding new books. It's one of the best feelings ever.
I assume you have read the Mistborn trilogy?
Have this cup of confused Lapsang Souchong tea - it's not quite certain whether it smells like a campfire or not.
I love those books! Have you read the Stormlight Archive?
I have a reading list longer than my arm. Have you read The Alloy of Law?
Very good; I can't wait for the sequels! I know the feeling of long reading lists XD What others of his books have you read?
But that's about it. I haven't been reading a lot of prose, recently - I'm reading a book about patent law right now.
It is US Patent Law, but it is well written, and gives a lot of good explanation for a complicated area of law. Also some of the cases are very interesting.
I'll look for it in the library once I'll actually start my studies.
A good selection of cases. Off the top of my head, there are cases on:
1. Corsets
2. Telephones
3. Telegraphs
4. Light Bulbs
5. Computers
6. eBay
And many others.
I love Warbreaker (I apologize for the incorrect grammar, I don't know how to italicize on here). It's one of my favorites of his. That's interesting; why that particular area of law?
I dunno what's the escape clause so I can't demonstrate, but you can find guides for that easily enough.
Anyway, I'm reading that particular book because it's not full of legalese; I haven't started my studies yet - I've still got five months of military service left - so I need to keep it simple. And, TBH, it's actually pretty interesting, not to mention useful.
I'll look those up when I can. You're in the military? That's so cool! I've never tried reading a law book, but I can see it being pretty interesting. Legalese is so tedious.
You see, we have compulsory conscription here (mostly - it's a bit complicated) and I'm of the right age.
I have a high respect for the military.
While it might not be the best path for everybody, those who can go on it for a while learn a lot. I know that I learned a lot and grew up because of my service.
It's less the 'we're a military, it's our job to hurt people' part (which is a gross exaggeration and generalisation, FYI - reality's a bit more complicated than that) and more the 'you have responsibility right now, you can't flunk it, and you have to work together with all sorts of different people to achieve your goal' part.
I also do not seek to denigrate the sacrifice of any member of any armed forces. I merely hold the belief that such sacrifice is not always as necessary as the bosses of the world would have everyone believe.
Apparently Scapegrace and I started a thing. We're both very anti-war, and there are people here who serve in the military.
I'm... not sure if adding my own thoughts to the discussion was a good idea, because my post was when everything kinda exploded.
An explosion of replies does not in and of itself mean an actual explosion. I respect your opinions and why you value them.
The fact that you're so violently opposed to war while there're those of us here who serve doesn't mean we can't agree on other things.
Soldiers are people, after all, and people on the whole are morally neutral. I'm not cynical enough to see humans as inherently bad, but I'm also not naïve enough to think they're inherently good.
My problem with soldiers is that I've heard about very few, if any, good ones, and an alarming number of honest-to-god horror stories about evil ones, the ones who enjoy killing, or doing worse things to civilians or even their brothers- and sisters-in-arms.
Rationally, I know that the psychos must be very few and far between, but, well, I'm not a rational person. Those horror stories have tarnished my vision of military forces as a whole, because I know that every armed force in the world has its supply of sociopathic soldiers.
As you've said yourself, the psychos are few and far between. They are just a lot more noticeable than the regular dudes and girls because they merit attention - a guy like me simply moving bits of paper from point A to point B won't make much of a news story.
There's also the thing that the armed forces do not get a higher amount of psychos than the rest of the populace, especially in places like here where you have a draft.
... do you carefully monitor your paper-moving activities for psychopathic behaviour? Have you analysed the way you hold your pen for indications of sociopathy? Des, Des, Des - have you considered all the trees who were ruthlessly slaughtered in order to give you paper to move from A to B?
hS, thinking of the trees. Won't anyone think of the trees?
(Digital lembas to the first person to make a 'Lorax' skit featuring me)
The silly response is, "I'm actually a murderous psycho, I just didn't tell anyone."
The serious response is that I've had the displeasure of working with a real head case - massively unpleasant guy, actual OCD and a host of other problems beside - and the lesson is that only an infinitesimal amount of the psychos in the army are actually of the 'rape pillage loot kill burn' type. Most of them will just make your life Hell if you have the misfortune of working with - or, worse, under - them.
... is that an absolutely sickening number of crimes go unpunished. I can't discuss the nature of it here, PG-13 Board after all, but I've read that over 97% of assaults on military women, by their own comerades, are never, ever punished.
You did not have to jump from 'sickening number of crimes go unpunished' to making that sort of suggestion- and yes, you did, considering you alluded to the board being PG-13.
For starters- the US military takes crimes committed by service members extremely seriously. Any crimes, be they while in uniform or while off duty.
For second, the US military takes sexual assault- which I know is what you were trying to unpleasantly insinuate- seriously and has several methods of dealing with it when it is reported discovered for the safety and integrity of the person assaulted. Which is not limited to only women, for the record. Every place I've been at has had zero tolerance for that sort of thing, and even if something doesn't happen at a particular command for whatever reason, there are people and resources to go to to get around it.
It isn't perfect, of course it isn't, but I would love to see a place that actually is.
Please do not spout factoids without actual proof or anything to back yourself up on them just to justify your vehement feelings against a group of people.
I hate making people angry...
But like I said earlier, the actions of a few kinda have tarnished my vision of the organization as a whole.
I apologize for making you angry, really I do.
I really don't have much of a spine, do I?
But with actual facts and evidence. Hearsay shouldn't be involved, especially when you're taking the actions of the few to blight your opinion on the many. It's a thing that should be applied to everything- not just one subject or organization.
As for angry, no, this isn't me angry whatsoever.
Because that is true, though I do not think the number is 97%, but they are under reported. The US Department of Justice published a study not too long ago that suggests that some percentage does go unreported.
I also know that when they are brought to the attention of command, those actions are heavily investigated and I also know that the JAG Corps (Military Lawyers) get a large number of those cases.
I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone else; I've just seen reasonable discussion. Which is a good thing which we like! Thumbs up!
hS
The discussion seems pretty level-headed to me.
Tea and crumpets for everyone! Huzzah!
And I'm also not allowed caffeine, so no tea either.
Ultimately, the purpose of a soldier is to kill, and that makes it very difficult for me, as a pacifist, to trust them. There's a fundamental difference in ideology that unfortunately cannot be rectified there: Soldiers believe that killing is okay in certain circumstances, and I believe that it's never okay.
I don't mean to insult members of any military force, but I've always believed that war is pointless, and does nothing but waste human life. Unfortunately, our society glorifies warfare, so most people nowadays have their heads filled with the idea that a soldier is the coolest thing ever, forgetting the fact that fighting is traumatic.
I'm sorry, but I just don't like the military. I disagree too much with their methods, and the United States government bringing back the draft is one of my personal nightmare scenarios. I'd likely kill myself before taking the life of another human being.
As far as I know (which, admittedly, is not far) if, for whatever reason, the draft is brought back, if you say you are a pacifist, and are able to reasonably prove that you are, then you do not have to be in the military.
What you are talking about is being a Conscientious Objector. In the US it is pretty narrow. You must be opposed to all war in any form and the objection must be sincere. From what I understand during the Vietnam War (last time the US used conscription) it basically acted as a mini-court case. Its burden was much higher than just reasonably prove. From what I understand it required something maybe not quite as high as what a Civil Lawsuit would require, but close.
But also in the US, unless World War III starts and Nuclear Weapons are not used, the US Government will not bring back the draft. We have an incredibly large volunteer armed forces.
If you, personally, would rather die than kill someone (even in self-defense?), then fine, but most people would agree that's the exception.
Having a military is the same principle. You don't want to be left defenseless when someone else attacks— and let's face it, someone will eventually. Sad as it is, we don't live in an ideal world where nobody has any need of a military. It's better to have that presence well-established and trained so when the inevitable happens, you can minimize casualties instead of having a country that is easily steamrolled and millions are left dead because people tried the ideal route.
As someone currently serving as well...
The US is not going to be bringing back the draft anytime soon. We are currently more than capable of operating at full functioning capabilities with volunteers. You don't need to make such a bold statement as that. Besides that, around (if not less than) 10% of the total American population is actually fit/able to serve under current requirements, and members of the military make up roughly one percent of said population.
You're welcome to not believe Des or me, but war is not always pointless, sometimes it does have to reach that point.
The important thing is to not make it the only option.
My father is a soldier and he had this to say when I brought up a topic similar to this one:
War is the final act of diplomacy. More specifically, it is the indicator of failure. Failure at the highest echelons of the government to reach out and work out a peaceful solution with the other party. He'd be happy to be out of a job but the fact of the matter is that there will always be a need for soldiers: everything on this planet is a competition and humans are no exception. When there is no compromise to be reached and the opposing group threatens your very existence, you fight.
My father's job is to make sure that that fight is as short as possible and inflicts the minimal amount of collateral damage. It sounds stupid, yes, and he admits that no war at all is the ideal. If there is to be war, then it must be as swift and painless as possible: there is a reason Sun Tzu says that "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Nobody wins. It's a horrifying, brutal affair.
With regards to your position on killing, take the rise of the so-called Islamic State for example. They have imposed a brutal regime focused on oppressing anyone who is Different. They persecute the Shia (who they consider "infidels" even though they are Muslim too) and the Christians and drive them from their lands, they pillage and destroy villages and cultural sites, they fund terror cells worldwide, they brutally execute prisoners of war (beheadings, burning alive, etc.), and oppose the governments of the various territories they control. If left to their own designs, will IS expand? Certainly. Do the people who live in areas near IS want them as their neighbours? Hell no.
There is only one thing left to do. The people take up arms and fight. They resist, they kill the invaders. It's not a pointless affair: this is about survival.
War is horrible and shouldn't happen but it does. Therefore we need people to fight and bring it to an end whenever it does happen.
But I still hate that it is necessary. I hate that people are forced to fight for their lives because other people are bloodthirsty psychos. I hate that some people are so defeatist about it, and insist that they will never be able to reach a peaceful resolution. I hate that human beings can be so black-and-white, and feel that anyone who disagrees with them is evil.
There's a reason I don't watch the news; I'm sick and tired of hearing about how terrible the world is.
Or on how terrible things are, or how terrible things could be.
I'm in the military because I don't want people to be forced to fight for their lives- I want to be one of the people who help.
The military- the American one, at least- isn't just compromised of soldiers, after all, and their goal isn't only to wage war.
The US Navy has ships that serve as floating hospitals that get deployed at the drop of a hat to go to places that need aid. The navy also patrols the sea as a hard and soft power, to help protect merchant ships from pirates, and as a general lookout for vessels in distress.
The US Army's out in Africa right now, still helping to provide border control to limit the spread of ebola further via quarantine.
There's plenty of news out there in the world to tell you how fantastic the world we live in is, and you don't need to be discouraged by war or violence; look at it as something to rise above instead. Volunteer for causes you care about, be active about helping. Actively improving the world- even in small things- is something you can do to prove plenty of people wrong and to show that your viewpoint and opinions not only matter, but can change the world as well.
You know how we wiped out smallpox and all, so we should surely be able to wipe out other diseases even better now, what with us being more advanced now?
Yeah, I was quite shocked to find out that smallpox was killed off by... basically putting everyone who'd been exposed in giant fences camps and waiting for it to die out in there. Um, and we got away with that, how?
Somehow you imagine the whole process being more... well... medical.
hS
The main reason we 'got away' with that is because there really were no better alternatives. We have vaccines, yes- pretty much everyone born before the mid 60s at least got them- but extremely unfortunately it's far more difficult to get everyone vaccinated and kill a disease off that way than to use a quarantine.
The whole procedure regarding diseases that aren't easily cured but are highly contagious kinda involves that sort of thing because there isn't very much you can do from a medical standpoint besides prevention and treatment.
Though, also, part of the reason there was intervention with the ebola outbreak (which has only been contained, it's improving, but it's still there) is because it was spreading faster than health officials were able to fight it on their own just because of sheer lack of knowledge and supplies in the affected region in the first place.
“But just as the river is always at the door, so is the world always outside. And it is in the world that we have to live.”
Lian Hearn nails it - you can't ignore the world outside. Especially since it's not the bestest world ever.
But goodness, that's quite the change from when I first met you.
Well, going through the army sure made me grow up a bit. I'd like to think I'm a bit more stable and mature now.
I agree. I personally think it is naive to ignore the outside world just because there is so much bad. I also think that unless and until a fully unified Utopian World Government exists (which will never happen) armed forces will always be required. One need only look to Germany's earlier war successes during World War II to see precisely why armed forces will always be required. Because ultimately, there will always be the Kim Jong Uns, the Adolf Hitlers, the Julius Caesars, and other would-be conquerors. And there will always be the Saddam Husseins and the Pol Pots.
I don't like how, for the most part, the news only tells you about the bad things that happen in the world. Some people think that the world is worse than it is because their newspapers only focus on crime or real-world horror stories or something.
And honestly, I used to be one of those people.
Yes - but it shouldn't have to be.
I'm going to hold up the ever-unpopular European Union here for a minute. Yes, it rose out of the back of a war - but it's not stayed intact because of military force. Germany isn't sitting there going 'now we've got our feet under us again, it's only a matter of time before France lets its guard down and we can start World War Three'; Britain isn't going 'man, if only the others would scrap their navies we could totally blow up their ports'. By and large, the established EU has achieved peace by... um... cooperating, instead of competing. Yes, there's competition on a parliamentary level, but once it all shakes out, we have a functioning (if rather weak) EU government.
"But Russia invaded Ukraine!" "But IS want to kill us!" Yes, I know, and that's why I'm speaking only of internal lack of conflict - but on the other hand, the EU is only 'internal' because it's working. Britain at peace with both Germany and France? Inconceivable!
Yes, it's hard for nations to get along without being worried that their neighbours are going to attack them if they show weakness - but it is possible. And if it's possible between Britain, France, and Germany, with all that historical bickering, then there's only a handful of places I'd say it's not possible.
(Which include, for the record: Israel and Palestine, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, and India and Pakistan. Lot of anger in those four. Also, Russia needs a change of outlook before it seems likely to cooperate very much.)
~
But what about internal threats like IS, or like the IRA a few years back? Yeah, that's a fair point, and I can't really come up with a solution that isn't the military. But a situation which is internal to both the union as a whole, and one of its member states, can make use of a relatively small force taken from everywhere, rather than a huge one taken from an individual state. I think?
hS
The military, as I said, is a necessary evil. Most soldiers don't like it, either.
However, I have two problems with what you say.
One is that killing yourself is not easy. It takes a special kind of courage - or despair, depending on your reasons - to do that. I don't think people should say that they'll kill themselves before doing something lightly - this is a thing of great importance indeed.
The second is logical in nature - if killing is never OK, how is killing yourself before taking another person's life OK? Either killing is always not OK, which means that killing yourself isn't OK, or killing is OK in certain circumstances (in which case you need to define them).
"What do you want to be liked for? You're the ones with all the guns."
I do believe that suicide is a horrible horrible thing to do to yourself. But in my mind, compared to being forced to end someone else's life and having to live with it for the rest of my own, it's the lesser of two evils.
And being forced into the military is literally the one and only condition I have for that. I have issues with self-loathing and depression, but I'm too much of a stubborn fool to even consider it for any other reason.
Let me explain my position to my own satisfaction, because it's probably not going to be to yours.
I'm extremely anti-war, and rather pro-international law. This... does tend to put one on something of a collision course with the IDF's more, for want of a better term, militant supporters. Perhaps it's hindsight talking (the entire region being my people's comprehensive cockup in the first place), but - while I wholeheartedly support Israeli statehood - I think a better solution could have been reached than the one that has led to the state of Israel being tiny and, to the common-or-garden outside observer, militaristic to a frankly absurd degree. My position on militarism in general is summed up by this verse from Billy Bragg:
"I kept the faith and I kept voting/
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand/
For theirs is a land with a wall around it/
And mine is a faith in my fellow man/
Theirs is a land of hope and glory/
Mine is the green field and the factory floor/
Theirs are the skies all dark with bombers/
And mine is the peace we knew/
Between the wars"
Please don't get me wrong; I sincerely believe in the right of Israel to be a state. I just think that over the course of creating that state, the British Government of the day made a complete and comprehensive Horlicks of the entire affair to the point where what was meant to be a safe haven for the thousands of displaced and downtrodden is a bunker full of sand and guns. We messed it up. The blame for all the lives lost lies, at least in part, at my people's door.
In part.
Generally speaking, I dislike war, and killing and senseless suffering. You have to be completely off your rocker to like that. The problem is that in the world as it is today, power - including but not limited to military power - is a necessary evil. International law without military power to back it is a joke, as Syria (where Assad gassed his own people) and Crimea (where Putin decided that the peninsula is his now) show, and a sad joke at that.
Israel is militaristic mainly because its neighbours are various shades of bloodthirsty madmen (it was nationalists in my grandparents' time and it's overly-religious fundies now, but they're pretty much the same thing with regards to Israel) who seem to have lost their ability to talk and reason somewhere along the way; the other choice is to let them butcher us, and I think the Jewish people as a collective had enough of that - being unable to protect itself - for hundreds of years which culminated in the Holocaust. Never again, and if we have to kill others to get some peace, so be it. Maybe it'll get through their thick skulls that they should mind their own business and let us exist in peace.
You know, being in the military gives you perspective. I don't mean the drivel they tell you in basic training; that's bullshit that even the commanders don't really believe. But - even as an administrator whose job can be summed up as 'telling people to do logistical things A, B and C because there's an angry officer who wants them done yesterday', I've seen things that made me stay up until late at night; things that made me realise there isn't any choice. Considering the environment we live in, peace through superior firepower is the only choice: si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war). Would that it be different, but it isn't. That is the harsh reality of the Middle East.
"Those who would desire war, prepare for war."
Vetinari's quote isn't diametrically opposed to the Latin phrase I quote earlier - it doesn't say anything about desiring peace. It is obvious that if you want war, you should prepare for it; what the phrase I quoted means is that even if you want peace, you must prepare for war - because your enemies won't just go "ah, he wants peace, we won't kill him now, let's all be friends". They'd go, "ah, he's not defending himself? Itbakh al-Yahud!" and kill you.
Sorry to butt in, and I don't intend to step on any toes, but... If everyone around you wants to and is actively trying to wipe you off the map, I would say that having at least some form of defense is a necessity. War should not be a thing. It is horrendous and ugly. But... It is a thing. Even if you don't desire war, those who do may not give you a choice.
So, welcome aBoard!
Full disclosure: I tried reading LotR. Sadly, I lost my small brick... Er, I mean, "pocket" full trilogy edition. And then I was too lazy to find it back.
Anyway, have this plush Great Old One! I'd recommend to avoid looking at it for too long. But it's f̥̙̥͙͈̭͢ͅl͏̦̞̺̘̰̞u͕̣̰̫͇̘͙f͈͢f͖̦̥͕͕̀y̻̮̫.
Have fun on the Board! ^^
Trust me, your agents will need it.
They're really good books, but of course I'm not biased AT ALL.. Thanks for the plush!
It's always lovely to have new people here! Have a bag of pebbles and a Random Shiny Object. *sweeping curtsey* It's always good to have more Tolkien fans around.
*hordes the Shiny and pebbles* I'm glad to be here! I do love Tolkien. Nothing quite like his works. :)
*gives box of popcorn* Tell me about the Lunar Chronicles; they sound like either a science-fiction series about a moon colony or a fantasy series about werewolves. Are either of those guesses right?
Oh, and since you're into Lord of the Rings, here's a T-shirt with the White Tree of Gondor printed on it. Enjoy your stay!
*eagerly takes popcorn* It's both, really. The general premise is futuristic retellings of Classic fairy tales- the first book is Cinder, in which Cinderella is a cyborg mechanic in the Eastern Commonwealth. There's werewolves (sorta) and a moon colony that is home to the main antagonist, Queen Levana. They're really good, I fully recommend them. The author actually started out writing Sailor Moon fanfiction, which she said helped her learn the craft. Thanks for the t shirt!
HI!!! I HAVENT BEEN HERE LONG EITHER BUT HI AND WELCOME!
/passes you a slice of infinite pizza/
I love this place! Thanks!
Oops, why did it post twice? /shrugs/ HAVE a HUG!
HI!!! I HAVENT BEEN HERE LONG EITHER BUT HI AND WELCOME!
/passes you a slice of infinite pizza/
Welcome to the board and here is a Lark Bled Light Pen.
Me gusto. *ties to urple bow*
Ooooh, an Amaura and a Will-O'-the-Wisp! I love htme; thanks!
Normal-type attacks become Ice-type attacks, deal 1.33x damage, and have a 33% chance to inflict 5x the attack's base power to adjacent enemies if you use one to make an opponent faint! Also you summon hail on entering the field. =]
Welcome, you're definitely fit right in.
Here, have a SACRED COOKIE OF INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (: :)!!!
A SACRED COOKIE OF INTERNET KNOWLEDGE!!My preciouss.. (Also, love the Lewis Carroll reference!)
Take this Weighted Companion Cube. If it attempts to stab you, ignore it. It cannot speak. If it does, it's lying.
Kitty :3
As yer newbie gift, you can have this replica of The One Ring that attracts chickens to you when you wear it.
Chicken! Yum. Thank ya kindly!
I'm the resident chicken whisperer here! May I have one too, please?
Have one of my own shed feathers! Careful, it's sharp~ XD
And seeing as you're a fan of Narnia, have a replica of the Wardrobe that doubles as a bedside table!
Can the feather by fashioned into a dagger? Imma fashion it into a dagger. I love the Wardrobe- thanks!
Though honestly, it's big enough that it can be made into a sword, instead XD
This shovel's an Intelligent Device. Meet Deep Digger; he's good at tectonic manipulation!
(I'm changing up my formula, whoo!)
*uncontrollably* I've always wanted a shovel! *sobs again* thank you!
But really, thanks. I love the welcoming atmosphere of the PPC, it's very refreshing. I shall store this with my hummingbird!
Intelligent Devices (from Magical Nanoha Lyrical Nanoha) are magical supercomputers that act as channels for arcane power. Deep Digger has access to spells that involve moving the earth around.
And they're called INTELLIGENT Devices for a reason.
Sorry! Got it. I'll keep him near me instead; that sounds useful.
Any kind of earthmover spell will be more along the lines of 'pick up a rock with a tractor beam or a magic binding spell' or 'crack the earth with a kinetic attack.' Flatout earthbending type things are not canon!
*nitpick nitpick*
