Re: Tmothy Zahn vs Kevin J Anderson
Posted: 29 Jul 2010 14:39
That'll do it.Omphalos wrote:Watched There Will Be Blood and put the rest of it away.
DUNE DISCUSSION FORUM FOR ORTHODOX HERBERTARIANS
http://www.jacurutu.com/
That'll do it.Omphalos wrote:Watched There Will Be Blood and put the rest of it away.
SandChigger wrote:Great link, Rob!
Sounds like he might even be a bigger dick than Anderson. (Is that possible? )
Another interview, actually. In a way I kind of agree with the point he's trying to make, but I think he could have used a better metaphor.A Thing of Eternity wrote: I remember the chicken, that was funny stuff.
What did he say about gang rape?
He seems to be obsessed with rape.Q: Given your philosophical views, what is your opinion on the War on Terror?
Terry Goodkind: There is no such thing as a "War on Terror." This is another example of philosophy corrupting action. You can't have a war on a name. "Hate crime" is another one of those things: either it's a crime, or it's not. Either someone is doing something wrong, or they're not. We're not having a war on terror, we're having a war on Islamic fundamentalism. We're afraid to name the enemy, and in [that fear], we give them strength. When you can't name the enemy, you've already lost. When you're afraid to see who it is you're fighting, you've already lost.
Take, for example, what we're doing in Iraq. The basic thing we're trying to do is enforce democracy. Democracy is a free-floating concept. There's no goodness [inherent] in democracy. Gang rape is democracy in action. Why should we enforce democracy? Why should we have Americans die so [Iraq] can elect a government who wants to kill us? It's stupid. Force should be used by a government just like it should be used by an individual: to prevent someone else from harm. That's the only valid, moral, ethical purpose of force: to protect your life. If somebody's trying to protect you, you should protect your life.
We have Americans dying over there to enforce democracy so that [Iraq] can vote to kill us. It's absurd. There's nothing holy about democracy. The sidetrack of adopting slogans like "making the world safe for democracy"... it's a free-floating concept; there's nothing good [inherent in] democracy. Democracy can be good if it's supported by other ethical values; justice, for example, and not hurting other people. But we're not enforcing a moral form of democracy; we're just supporting the idea of democracy in general, and there's nothing more about democracy in and of itself.
The war on terror is merely theatrics to convince the American people that something is being done. All you have to do is go to an airport to see how philosophy has caused a breakdown in effective action. Airport security is pure theatrics to convince people that something is being done, and it ignores the reality of the nature of the threat. We have [security] people searching obvious non-threats because they don't want to be seen as profiling. When you're looking for a burglar, and the burglar is two-foot-ten, and you put out an APB for that burglar, that's not profiling, it's a description of the subject. The authorities should know who they're fighting.
When you say you're fighting terror, there's no such thing as "terror" as an enemy. You're doing gang rape on 80 year-old Swedish grandmothers because you're afraid to say that the enemy are Middle Eastern men. This distraction, this forced equality, is ignoring of reality. Philosophy is at the cause of this because they're ignoring reality in order to adapt meaningless principles. The philosophy is going to get us all killed.
In World War II, in Japan, there were no deaths of Americans by insurgence, and the reason [for that] is because America, at that time, had the courage to crush those who were enforcing evil ideas. We may have had to kill a lot of people, but it was the only way to crush those evil ideas. And because we crushed those evil ideas, an entire culture in Japan grew up to create a great, noble, free people who have become an engine of freedom and an engine of economy in the world.
You either crush evil or you don't. If you allow evil to co-exist with you, it's only going to grow. We're allowing evil to grow. We're too timid to attack evil, and make no mistake: the Islamic world wants to kill us, and sooner or later, an atomic bomb is going to go off in the United States because we don't even have the courage to name the enemy.
Um, from his mention of "insurgence", I think he's actually talking about the post-war occupation.In World War II, in Japan, there were no deaths of Americans by insurgence, and the reason [for that] is because America, at that time, had the courage to crush those who were enforcing evil ideas. We may have had to kill a lot of people, but it was the only way to crush those evil ideas. And because we crushed those evil ideas, an entire culture in Japan grew up to create a great, noble, free people who have become an engine of freedom and an engine of economy in the world.
It definitely is terrorism.SandChigger wrote: The "can't make a war on a name" idea isn't new. And a "hate crime" is "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence"; not quite sure what he thinks it is.
(And it's fine to have a war on Islamic fundamentalism, but no one talks about warring on the "Christian" fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors. How is the latter not also terrorism? )
SandChigger wrote:...
The "can't make a war on a name" idea isn't new. And a "hate crime" is "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence"; not quite sure what he thinks it is.
(And it's fine to have a war on Islamic fundamentalism, but no one talks about warring on the "Christian" fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors. How is the latter not also terrorism? )