|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 5, 2019 15:56:46 GMT
"You pot heads" also refer to everyone else besides the ones you mention - because again, you addressed all of us: "I know how much you like to read books cover to cover." "You" who? Grammatically, this means everyone on the board in which the thread is posted, because you made no distinction. Unless you specify whom you mean by "you", then "you" is unspecified. And you never made any distinctions later on either until I twisted your arm to come up with some half-baked back-paddling. Perhaps you really did mean "just the ones who actually fit the description, and not people here in general", but that is not what you communicated. But seeing as you failed to even outline a topic in your OP (you had to be prodded to provide that, too), I'm not surprised you find nothing wrong with your communication. You don't teach English. Pretending you do on the internet is amusing to watch though. That's some pretty rich projecting you've got going there. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 5, 2019 17:00:25 GMT
There have been fewer than a dozen books which could captivate me word for word. All others I had to skim or skip at least a phrase here and there, because of the poor communication either of the writer, or of the translation.
Many classics actually have too much technical jargon to be spurred by every word.
Melville and Defoe fail pretty miserably in their sea stories by being way too technical. Moby Dick is horribly communicated to a "landlubber". Robinson Crusoe is a bit better, but still fails.
Stevenson does much better with "Treasure Island", although there are parts in which he fails. In the beginning, while Hawkins is still at the inn, there are a couple of compound phrases that are too much. On the voyage, there are two or three instances which are too technical, and the part with Israel Hands also gets too technical for a "landlubber". But overall, the story moves at a very excellent pace.
So, seafaring stories have me at a disadvantage, but most books are written by poor communicators who are too proud of their own private little worlds of superior jargon.
One that comes close to being a "well flowing story" is THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. The first half flows well. It is the second half that flails, more for the lull the story goes into than anything else.
Camus does the opposite with THE STRANGER, in which the first half is confusing, purposely so, and I'm not sure what is going on, but the second half is quite clear.
Here are some novels which I could find myself captivated by word for word:
And Then There Were None
Candide
All Quiet on the Western Front
Ball Four
I know there are a few others, but I can't think of them right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 5, 2019 21:09:23 GMT
Did you know the CIA helped finance the British 1954 animated adaptation?
|
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 5, 2019 22:20:28 GMT
There is a book by George Orwell called Animal Farm. I know how much you like to read books cover to cover. Yeah right, you haven't read a book cover to cover since the internet started. It's difficult for you pot heads to read something as long as a book, isn't it? At one time Animal Farm was required reading in school. Maybe someone here remembers that. What?!? You're demonstrating the short attention span that you're accusing people of in your post with the post itself. It's basically: Try to string together a coherent thought and then perhaps (just "perhaps") we won't think you're a moron. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2019 22:46:02 GMT
There is a book by George Orwell called Animal Farm. I know how much you like to read books cover to cover. Yeah right, you haven't read a book cover to cover since the internet started. It's difficult for you pot heads to read something as long as a book, isn't it? At one time Animal Farm was required reading in school. Maybe someone here remembers that. What?!? You're demonstrating the short attention span that you're accusing people of in your post with the post itself. It's basically: Try to string together a coherent thought and then perhaps (just "perhaps") we won't think you're a moron. It's like almost every other topic on this board except that it uses a classic, widely read book as a conversation piece. As is often the case you are upset because it is outside the extremely limited scope of your experience and understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2019 22:50:07 GMT
Which is why there is this thread. I brought it up because there are comparisons to be made between characters in the book and public figures today. Yes, but what has that got to do though with your assumptive and arrogant statement as to what other posters reading habits are? You could have left all of that out, instead of acting like you are the Mr. Know It All of pseudo-intellectual superiority which only makes you look like a fool.  I believe some people enjoy taking offense and make up instances of offense. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2019 23:10:29 GMT
I believe some people enjoy taking offense and make up instances of offense. And I believe some people instigate ridiculing just so they can enjoy seeing others take offense. Is that you in this instance Arlon? I am not making any excuses for your manner. Did I name you in anything? Recently, I mean. Not really interesting and no surprise if you missed it, but recently goz and FilmFlaneur have been chiding me about how I don't accept "medical science" on the efficacy of many types of medication. I asked them, or goz anyway, what their medical science says about marijuana. I mentioned that I have a website where I discuss the problems with marijuana. So among whomever else the shoe might fit, they might deserve the name calling. If everyone got a dollar every time they were called names unfairly on anonymous discussion boards I think I'd make the most money. I don't really care though as you probably noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2019 23:20:06 GMT
You don't teach English. Pretending you do on the internet is amusing to watch though. That's some pretty rich projecting you've got going there. I was thinking I'm not pushy enough. I take it don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2019 23:44:17 GMT
And I believe some people instigate ridiculing just so they can enjoy seeing others take offense. Is that you in this instance Arlon? I am not making any excuses for your manner. Did I name you in anything? Recently, I mean. Not really interesting and no surprise if you missed it, but recently goz and FilmFlaneur have been chiding me about how I don't accept "medical science" on the efficacy of many types of medication. I asked them, or goz anyway, what their medical science says about marijuana. I mentioned that I have a website where I discuss the problems with marijuana. This is what the Cannabis Law Reform organisation says, published on the medical British Medical Journal website. (Unlike Arlon the reader will note a range of sources for their information and campaign for change. Even in the UK there has been some movement i.e. in the act to decriminalise cannabis oil for medicinal use of late, since in this instance the benefits are clear while, for most people watching reforms world-wide, it is clear which way the tide is running): "This paper reviews the evidence in support of the safety and efficacy of using raw herbal cannabis as medicine. It is widely claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support medicinal use but this is not borne out by the facts, let alone 10,000 years of human history. In fact, there is so much evidence available for so many conditions that this paper is restricted to conditions for which cannabis appears to have the most beneficial effects. Side effects and risks of medicinal cannabis are very well documented in the literature, much of which is focused on identifying harms of recreational use. The risks are extremely low in a therapeutic context compared with pharmaceutical medicines." www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2015/03/Medicinal%20Cannabis%20The%20Evidence%20V1.pdf Common medical conditions for which marijuana is allowed (i.e., those conditions shared by at least 80 percent of medical marijuana states) are: Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cachexia/wasting syndrome, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy and seizures, glaucoma, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, multiple sclerosis and muscle spasticity, severe and chronic pain, and severe nausea. This is not to say of course that matters are settled or that the efficacy of the drug is thoroughly proven in every case. One inevitably wonders at this point if, given his negative view of medical science more generally, Arlon takes any medication at all, on any occasion - perhaps eschewing doctors, he just prays or visits his local faith healer in every instance? I have a feeling I will face my regular disappointment in getting a straight answer to this question. There is no need to keep plugging your site, Arlon. Visitors who have ventured there before, including myself seeking novelty, quickly recognise the pattern: generally unsubstantiated opinion, unleavened either by humour, intellectual modesty or informed knowledge. In this one thing at least we concur, but when faced by the rudest of posters (like Vegas, who I found mistakes insults for argument) I eventually just move on to more fruitful discussion. If nothing else it makes for a more edifying reading experience. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2019 23:54:07 GMT
Did I name you in anything? Recently, I mean. Not really interesting and no surprise if you missed it, but recently goz and FilmFlaneur have been chiding me about how I don't accept "medical science" on the efficacy of many types of medication. I asked them, or goz anyway, what their medical science says about marijuana. I mentioned that I have a website where I discuss the problems with marijuana. This is what the Cannabis Law Reform organisation says, published on the medical British Medical Journal website. (Unlike Arlon the reader will note a range of sources for their information and campaign for change. Even in the UK there has been some movement i.e. in the act to decriminalise cannabis oil for medicinal use of late, since in this instance the benefits are clear while, for most people watching reforms world-wide, it is clear which way the tide is running): "This paper reviews the evidence in support of the safety and efficacy of using raw herbal cannabis as medicine. It is widely claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support medicinal use but this is not borne out by the facts, let alone 10,000 years of human history. In fact, there is so much evidence available for so many conditions that this paper is restricted to conditions for which cannabis appears to have the most beneficial effects. Side effects and risks of medicinal cannabis are very well documented in the literature, much of which is focused on identifying harms of recreational use. The risks are extremely low in a therapeutic context compared with pharmaceutical medicines." www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2015/03/Medicinal%20Cannabis%20The%20Evidence%20V1.pdf Common medical conditions for which marijuana is allowed (i.e., those conditions shared by at least 80 percent of medical marijuana states) are: Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cachexia/wasting syndrome, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy and seizures, glaucoma, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, multiple sclerosis and muscle spasticity, severe and chronic pain, and severe nausea. This is not to say of course that matters are settled or that the efficacy of the drug is thoroughly proven in every case. One inevitably wonders at this point if, given his negative view of medical science more generally, Arlon takes any medication at all, on any occasion - perhaps eschewing doctors, he just prays or visits his local faith healer in every instance? I have a feeling I will face my regular disappointment in getting a straight answer to this question. There is no need to keep plugging your site, Arlon. Visitors who have ventured there before, including myself seeking novelty, quickly recognise the pattern: generally unsubstantiated opinion, unleavened either by humour, intellectual modesty or informed knowledge. In this one thing at least we concur, but when faced by the rudest of posters (like Vegas, who I found mistakes insults for argument) I eventually just move on to more fruitful discussion. If nothing else it makes for a more edifying reading experience. Thanks OpiateOfTheMasses and FilmFlaneur for your disparate yet in their own ways, elegant answers in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2019 0:12:34 GMT
Did I name you in anything? Recently, I mean. Not really interesting and no surprise if you missed it, but recently goz and FilmFlaneur have been chiding me about how I don't accept "medical science" on the efficacy of many types of medication. I asked them, or goz anyway, what their medical science says about marijuana. I mentioned that I have a website where I discuss the problems with marijuana. This is what the Cannabis Law Reform organisation says, published on the medical British Medical Journal website. (Unlike Arlon the reader will note a range of sources for their information and campaign for change. Even in the UK there has been some movement i.e. in the act to decriminalise cannabis oil for medicinal use of late, since in this instance the benefits are clear while, for most people watching reforms world-wide, it is clear which way the tide is running): "This paper reviews the evidence in support of the safety and efficacy of using raw herbal cannabis as medicine. It is widely claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support medicinal use but this is not borne out by the facts, let alone 10,000 years of human history. In fact, there is so much evidence available for so many conditions that this paper is restricted to conditions for which cannabis appears to have the most beneficial effects. Side effects and risks of medicinal cannabis are very well documented in the literature, much of which is focused on identifying harms of recreational use. The risks are extremely low in a therapeutic context compared with pharmaceutical medicines." www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2015/03/Medicinal%20Cannabis%20The%20Evidence%20V1.pdf Common medical conditions for which marijuana is allowed (i.e., those conditions shared by at least 80 percent of medical marijuana states) are: Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cachexia/wasting syndrome, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy and seizures, glaucoma, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, multiple sclerosis and muscle spasticity, severe and chronic pain, and severe nausea. This is not to say of course that matters are settled or that the efficacy of the drug is thoroughly proven in every case. One inevitably wonders at this point if, given his negative view of medical science more generally, Arlon takes any medication at all, on any occasion - perhaps eschewing doctors, he just prays or visits his local faith healer in every instance? I have a feeling I will face my regular disappointment in getting a straight answer to this question. There is no need to keep plugging your site, Arlon. Visitors who have ventured there before, including myself seeking novelty, quickly recognise the pattern: generally unsubstantiated opinion, unleavened either by humour, intellectual modesty or informed knowledge. In this one thing at least we concur, but when faced by the rudest of posters (like Vegas, who I found mistakes insults for argument) I eventually just move on to more fruitful discussion. If nothing else it makes for a more edifying reading experience. Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. It isn't you that found the harsh criticism, is it? You are less mean than the others though. With you it's more condescension. Of course you don't recognize how condescending it is because none of it was ever your own work. Making my own arguments makes me the mean one. You think I've offended the social order by thinking on my own. Your idea of a better plan is for me to copy something off the internet as mindlessly as the "nice" people in the world. When I was in high school I met a lot of people because I was active on the debate team, got to go to interscholastic speech competitions, regularly attended religious services, and worked part time at fast food restaurants. I was thoroughly immersed in society with a rather large circle of contacts. I also enjoyed music very much and attended concerts. What I know about life is from my own interaction with real people. At the same time I did keep my grades up and thoroughly understand how proofs are made or in your case not made. I understood long ago that you will never accept my findings until some authority you recognize does. "Where is the authority you mindlessly copied like I do, Arlon? Aha! Thought so. It is your own work! What a shame!" Only I don't think it's a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2019 0:29:06 GMT
Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. It isn't you that found the harsh criticism, is it? You are less mean than the others though. With you it's more condescension. Of course you don't recognize how condescending it is because none of it was ever your own work. Making my own arguments makes me the mean one. You think I've offended the social order by thinking on my own. Your idea of a better plan is for me to copy something off the internet as mindlessly as the "nice" people in the world. When I was in high school I met a lot of people because I was active on the debate team, got to go to interscholastic speech competitions, regularly attended religious services, and worked part time at fast food restaurants. I was thoroughly immersed in society with a rather large circle of contacts. I also enjoyed music very much and attended concerts. What I know about life is from my own interaction with real people. At the same time I did keep my grades up and thoroughly understand how proofs are made or in your case not made. I understood long ago that you will never accept my findings until some authority you recognize does. "Where is the authority you mindlessly copied like I do, Arlon? Aha! Thought so. It is your own work! What a shame!" Only I don't think it's a shame. Arlon, I suggest you quit the pot  and\or  , because it appears that this self-absorbed muddle is making your point murkier. What irony! Perhaps you don't agree but keeping up with me is exactly what substance abusers fail to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2019 0:43:42 GMT
There have been fewer than a dozen books which could captivate me word for word. All others I had to skim or skip at least a phrase here and there, because of the poor communication either of the writer, or of the translation. Many classics actually have too much technical jargon to be spurred by every word. Melville and Defoe fail pretty miserably in their sea stories by being way too technical. Moby Dick is horribly communicated to a "landlubber". Robinson Crusoe is a bit better, but still fails. Stevenson does much better with "Treasure Island", although there are parts in which he fails. In the beginning, while Hawkins is still at the inn, there are a couple of compound phrases that are too much. On the voyage, there are two or three instances which are too technical, and the part with Israel Hands also gets too technical for a "landlubber". But overall, the story moves at a very excellent pace. So, seafaring stories have me at a disadvantage, but most books are written by poor communicators who are too proud of their own private little worlds of superior jargon. One that comes close to being a "well flowing story" is THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. The first half flows well. It is the second half that flails, more for the lull the story goes into than anything else. Camus does the opposite with THE STRANGER, in which the first half is confusing, purposely so, and I'm not sure what is going on, but the second half is quite clear. Here are some novels which I could find myself captivated by word for word: And Then There Were None Candide All Quiet on the Western Front Ball Four I know there are a few others, but I can't think of them right now. Sometimes the publisher's of inexpensive paperback versions of classics "dumb then down" for younger readers. I didn't have any trouble with nautical jargon in Melville, but that might be because it was one of those paperbacks or other "for younger readers" copies. I can't remember now, it was too long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2019 1:04:56 GMT
This is what the Cannabis Law Reform organisation says, published on the medical British Medical Journal website. (Unlike Arlon the reader will note a range of sources for their information and campaign for change. Even in the UK there has been some movement i.e. in the act to decriminalise cannabis oil for medicinal use of late, since in this instance the benefits are clear while, for most people watching reforms world-wide, it is clear which way the tide is running): "This paper reviews the evidence in support of the safety and efficacy of using raw herbal cannabis as medicine. It is widely claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support medicinal use but this is not borne out by the facts, let alone 10,000 years of human history. In fact, there is so much evidence available for so many conditions that this paper is restricted to conditions for which cannabis appears to have the most beneficial effects. Side effects and risks of medicinal cannabis are very well documented in the literature, much of which is focused on identifying harms of recreational use. The risks are extremely low in a therapeutic context compared with pharmaceutical medicines." www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2015/03/Medicinal%20Cannabis%20The%20Evidence%20V1.pdf Common medical conditions for which marijuana is allowed (i.e., those conditions shared by at least 80 percent of medical marijuana states) are: Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cachexia/wasting syndrome, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy and seizures, glaucoma, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, multiple sclerosis and muscle spasticity, severe and chronic pain, and severe nausea. This is not to say of course that matters are settled or that the efficacy of the drug is thoroughly proven in every case. One inevitably wonders at this point if, given his negative view of medical science more generally, Arlon takes any medication at all, on any occasion - perhaps eschewing doctors, he just prays or visits his local faith healer in every instance? I have a feeling I will face my regular disappointment in getting a straight answer to this question. There is no need to keep plugging your site, Arlon. Visitors who have ventured there before, including myself seeking novelty, quickly recognise the pattern: generally unsubstantiated opinion, unleavened either by humour, intellectual modesty or informed knowledge. In this one thing at least we concur, but when faced by the rudest of posters (like Vegas, who I found mistakes insults for argument) I eventually just move on to more fruitful discussion. If nothing else it makes for a more edifying reading experience. Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. It isn't you that found the harsh criticism, is it? You are less mean than the others though. With you it's more condescension. Of course you don't recognize how condescending it is because none of it was ever your own work. Making my own arguments makes me the mean one. You think I've offended the social order by thinking on my own. Your idea of a better plan is for me to copy something off the internet as mindlessly as the "nice" people in the world. When I was in high school I met a lot of people because I was active on the debate team, got to go to interscholastic speech competitions, regularly attended religious services, and worked part time at fast food restaurants. I was thoroughly immersed in society with a rather large circle of contacts. I also enjoyed music very much and attended concerts. What I know about life is from my own interaction with real people. At the same time I did keep my grades up and thoroughly understand how proofs are made or in your case not made. I understood long ago that you will never accept my findings until some authority you recognize does. "Where is the authority you mindlessly copied like I do, Arlon? Aha! Thought so. It is your own work! What a shame!" Only I don't think it's a shame. Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2019 4:46:16 GMT
Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. It isn't you that found the harsh criticism, is it? You are less mean than the others though. With you it's more condescension. Of course you don't recognize how condescending it is because none of it was ever your own work. Making my own arguments makes me the mean one. You think I've offended the social order by thinking on my own. Your idea of a better plan is for me to copy something off the internet as mindlessly as the "nice" people in the world. When I was in high school I met a lot of people because I was active on the debate team, got to go to interscholastic speech competitions, regularly attended religious services, and worked part time at fast food restaurants. I was thoroughly immersed in society with a rather large circle of contacts. I also enjoyed music very much and attended concerts. What I know about life is from my own interaction with real people. At the same time I did keep my grades up and thoroughly understand how proofs are made or in your case not made. I understood long ago that you will never accept my findings until some authority you recognize does. "Where is the authority you mindlessly copied like I do, Arlon? Aha! Thought so. It is your own work! What a shame!" Only I don't think it's a shame. Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. Is that supposed to mean that people who smoke marijuana can process large quantities of text? What large quantities of text have you processed? I do not mean merely copy and paste processing. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2019 7:15:04 GMT
Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. Is that supposed to mean that people who smoke marijuana can process large quantities of text? What large quantities of text have you processed? I do not mean merely copy and paste processing. You are so stupid and an antiquated dick! I have smoked half a marijuana cigarette ( so I could be informed) 30 years ago in my life and found it underwhelming. Your'e an idiot and out of touch in your own PlanetArlon world. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 6, 2019 7:17:04 GMT
Having been written by Orwell with the Soviet Union and Stalin in mind over 70 years ago it is not possible to make a current comparison that fits all of the content and characters. Trump may not be a dictator yet, but neither is Napoleon at the start of the book. He just has latent tendencies. Trump has not been forced from control like Mr. Jones. Sorry, I still disagree. Trump doesn't have dictatorial tendencies in my opinion. Otherwise, would the congress women wearing white yesterday still be alive today? Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Mr.Jones. Maybe Trump will be forced to resign. A valid (in my opinion) comparison between Trump and Napoleon is that Trump has his own Squealers, in form of Breitbart, InfoWars, or other fake news factories. But in choosing Trump as Napoleon it makes it possible to find a counterpart figure(s) for Snowball. With my selection that becomes possible, and that was the question posed, so I still think my choice holds up better than what you are coming up with. Snowball and Napoleon were allies at first (like Stalin and Trotzki). If we insist on comparing Trump with Napoleon, we should look in the ranks of (former) allies to find him a "Snowball". I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know some Republicans who might be rivals for Trump. But anyway: Snowball wasn't really the good guy either. He too wanted special privileges for the pigs (like apples). And how do we know if the Cold War could have been averted if it had been Trotzki in power instead of Stalin? Maybe Benjamin should have run Animal Farm. With help from Mr.Pilkington, Mr.Whymper, and Clover or Muriel. Would it have worked? We'll never know. Putin is not Benjamin. But anyway: In hindsight, I believe that one of the smartest characters from Animal Farm was Mollie. Hedonistic and looking out for her interests and well-being. As Ebner-Eschenbach said: The biggest enemies of freedom are happy slaves. Doesn't make them stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 6, 2019 13:47:35 GMT
What?!? You're demonstrating the short attention span that you're accusing people of in your post with the post itself. It's basically: Try to string together a coherent thought and then perhaps (just "perhaps") we won't think you're a moron. It's like almost every other topic on this board except that it uses a classic, widely read book as a conversation piece. As is often the case you are upset because it is outside the extremely limited scope of your experience and understanding. You're turning into Ada. You don't care how negative the attention you get is as long as you're getting attention. It's pathetic and I'm done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 6, 2019 14:15:48 GMT
Having been written by Orwell with the Soviet Union and Stalin in mind over 70 years ago it is not possible to make a current comparison that fits all of the content and characters. Trump may not be a dictator yet, but neither is Napoleon at the start of the book. He just has latent tendencies. Trump has not been forced from control like Mr. Jones. Sorry, I still disagree. Trump doesn't have dictatorial tendencies in my opinion. Otherwise, would the congress women wearing white yesterday still be alive today? Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Mr.Jones. Maybe Trump will be forced to resign. A valid (in my opinion) comparison between Trump and Napoleon is that Trump has his own Squealers, in form of Breitbart, InfoWars, or other fake news factories. But in choosing Trump as Napoleon it makes it possible to find a counterpart figure(s) for Snowball. With my selection that becomes possible, and that was the question posed, so I still think my choice holds up better than what you are coming up with. Snowball and Napoleon were allies at first (like Stalin and Trotzki). If we insist on comparing Trump with Napoleon, we should look in the ranks of (former) allies to find him a "Snowball". I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know some Republicans who might be rivals for Trump. But anyway: Snowball wasn't really the good guy either. He too wanted special privileges for the pigs (like apples). And how do we know if the Cold War could have been averted if it had been Trotzki in power instead of Stalin? Maybe Benjamin should have run Animal Farm. With help from Mr.Pilkington, Mr.Whymper, and Clover or Muriel. Would it have worked? We'll never know. Putin is not Benjamin. But anyway: In hindsight, I believe that one of the smartest characters from Animal Farm was Mollie. Hedonistic and looking out for her interests and well-being. As Ebner-Eschenbach said: The biggest enemies of freedom are happy slaves. Doesn't make them stupid. Dictators don't always kill anybody that opposes them, even after grasping absolute authority. But to assume Trump has no dictatorial tendencies because congresswomen wearing white yesterday are still living hits me as rather ridiculous. But as I said any comparison will be a force fit so a choice will be subjective. I have chosen one pick that fits some aspects and not others. The same will be true for any choice you make. But here is a production that went the direction I did: Animal Farm staging link |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 6, 2019 14:18:21 GMT
Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Stalin exactly. He did not lead the February or October revolutions (though he took part) - these revolutions would have happened even if Stalin hadn't been involved. Then he did not become leader until some time after the October revolution - this he did not by force, but by a mixture of playing the different factions off each other following Lenin's death and gathering the support of the emerging bureaucratic class. Trotsky's plan was to encourage and support socialist revolutions in all the major developed countries. IMO, it's a tactic that would have resulted either in global socialism or the destruction of the Soviet Union. Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy on the other hand gave both the west and east breathing space resulting in the long cold war. |
|
)
