The point of the book isn't so much to argue against war in general as to argue against the idea that war is inevitable.
The idea that war and specific acts of war are unavoidable parts of the human condition is supposed to seem as insane and pathetic as the protagonist's passive view of his life, a view that comes from his beliefs about time travel.
Some of the most heated, seemingly-intractable arguments I've participated in have led me later upon reflection to change my mind. I'm thankful the other party didn't take this viewpoint that arguing is pointless.
Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal. Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through logical means (as opposed to say force or habit). I think it's somewhat akin to the principle of charity.
Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal. Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through logical means
This is good if you are using this as a filter to find exceptional people. The exceptional people can often be persuaded, because they actually listen and consider unfamiliar ideas and ways of thinking. (Also note, that they aren't always persuaded.)
However, if you are playing the odds - odds are people aren't really listening or devoting sufficient attention to a complex or genuinely novel idea.
Exactly. Last weekend I watched UFO conspiracy videos all day, just for the entertainment value. I see people reading Marx and sometimes even Hitler's stuff, and they're neither Commies nor Nazis obviously.
I wonder what people would think if I sat next to them on an airplane reading Mein Kampf, actually. Marx is academic-trendy enough that people won't look down on you for reading him, but Hitler's a different story.
I would think that anyone reading Mein Kampf is an avid student of history, maybe WWII history in particular. It seems much more likely than them being a Nazi.
Maybe. I don't know about the US, but in Europe, reading this book in public would provoke a strong reaction in people. (I think selling or even owning the book is illegal in several countries.) So I think somebody doing that would be more likely to be making a statement of some sort. What kind of statement, may vary... (They could have Nazi sympathies, or be vehemently anti-censorship, or just like to shock people, etc.)
Personally if I were reading a crazy conspiracy-theory book for some other purpose (research for a book I was writing about how crazy other people are, frinstance) I'd avoid reading it in public.
Where does PayPal state that you must have 501(c)(3) status to accept donations? (I'm concerned because I do something similar to CompuerGuru--accept donations for free software via PayPal and have done so for years).
The fact that people did bad things at one time doesn't imply that what they did was accepted generally or approved by moral standards of the time. For example, many contemporaries opposed the tactics of the Inquisition (mentioned in the article as the advent of waterboarding).
Using the same logic we could characterize 20th-Century people as accepting mass-murder, because it was practiced by numerous nations on a never-before-seen scale.
Read "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace" by Joseph Williams.
It is not one of those books like Strunk and White's that teaches you a set of arbitrary rules.
Rather, the author defines a set of general principles. Then he develops and illustrates those principles with good and bad examples. And talks about the exceptions to those principles.
Much of what separates really good writing from merely correct writing seems ineffable; it sounds the right note. Williams makes many of those seemingly indescribable qualities identifiable, so you can then recognize them in others' writing and learn to build them into your own.
I have a great amount of respect for Richard Stallman, but I don't understand how he reconciles his concerns about a large "surveillance state" (#24) with his insistence that governments take away enough power from companies to make them "squeal." (#17)
Doesn't one work against the other? In other words, a government with enough power to make citizens' organizations squeal by practical necessity risks becoming a "surveillance state."
People walk because their parents absolutely, positively would not give up teaching them to walk.
Citation, please? All three of my kids have taken the initiative themselves to learn to walk, and I've never seen a non-walking older child without a physical disability.
The idea that war and specific acts of war are unavoidable parts of the human condition is supposed to seem as insane and pathetic as the protagonist's passive view of his life, a view that comes from his beliefs about time travel.