Several things I noticed about FF's "verse"
POSTED BY: Allronix
UPDATED: Monday, December 30, 2002 14:48
VIEWED: 10617
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:
For me the darkest part of the show is that one line, "The earth got used up." Damn. He says it so matter-o'-fact. Given what I know about our Gaia and Her resiliance, I don't even know how that's possible. I mean, when he says "used up" I don't think he means we depleted our fossil fuels and hadda go solar. I think he means used up. Gives me a chill. And the theme song, "Burn the land and boil the sea/You can't take the sky from me." Breaks my heart every time I hear it.
But they've also referred to it, from time to time, as "Earth that was". That almost implies something like an ecological collapse... another something that seems all too likely given extrapolation from the current progression of events.
History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it merely shouts "Weren't you listening the first time?!?" and lets fly with a club.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GatorMarc:Quote:
Originally posted by HKcavalier:
You can stop banging your head against the wall on my account. I know what you meant. Of course, you weren't discribing a "real" society with your "example."
Now that's just more frustrating to me...
You understood my point in the example the entire time but chose to argue a technicality rather than the merit of the example.
I also understood your point, I just failed to see its relevance. Your example illustrates your point about the "wealth gap" quite well, that a "gap" doesn't necessarily mean the poorest of the poor are impoverished. So, in theory, it's a fine point. But theory is, or should be, used to explain reality. Since there is no society in which the poorest of the poor makes an annual income of $20,000, I fail to see how your example illustrates anything useful.
If you are ultimately arguing (which I suspect is the case) that when many leftist people and organizations today rail against the "wealth gap,"
they are working from an incorrect understanding of wealth distribution. However, they would be talking about a much more complicated society than a $20,000-$100,000 weath gap - a society including homeless people, people on welfare, the unemployed, etc. Furthermore, I find the example misleading and needessly simplifies today's economic reality - a common tactic in political arguments, I find (taking something to the ridiculous extreme so that your opponent is forced to concede your point, then arguing that that extreme example illustrates your argument generally).
And I chose to reply with a short provocative statement because I didn't want to write all this out unless I needed to. So there you go.
- soleta
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCAVALIER and soleta,
I now understand why both of you posted what you did... you made assumptions on the point of my post instead of taking it as it was, a simple example. And based your posts on the assumptions rather than the actual point.
I'd rather have a conversation on the topic rather than your assumptions and lebels...
Slowly backing out of this thread as it's degraded beyond hope.
GatorMarc
Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME