Scythus
-
Posts
2755 -
Joined
-
Quote:Not what I was addressing.Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Exactly. The teacher was the one that failed because he wasn't "listening" to what the author was communicating because the teacher was drowning out the message with the static of his personal pompous assumptions that he knows better than the author what the author meant. -
Then he had a failure in communication.
-
Imagine if Vanguard tried nuking Paragon City to deal with the Rikti. Illegal or not, UN or not, Nick Fury made the right call.
-
Quote:No, there were civilian characters inside that universe that assumed Federal Service was military (Juan's father being the poster boy), military characters that treated Federal Service as meaning military, and not much save neutral ambiguous language that supports a so-called "civil service" Federal Service.Originally Posted by Starflier
Sure, but the author of that paper basically red Rainbow Six and decided that Tom Clancy believed the entirety of the world's fighting men were special ops soldiers.
Reading a book about war, military, and soldiers from the perspective of the fighting men and then deciding everything is all about war and military and soldiers based on the words of said soldiers is dumb.
So actually it would be like having Mr. Clancy come out later and claim that only one or three of the Rainbow Six characters was military and the rest were CIA. -
Quote:Certainly, but that doesn't mean that they're correct. I could write a rip-roaring fantasy swashbuckler that clearly described pink skinned humans and 20 years later claim that they were all really crabs.Originally Posted by Starflier
Just because.
-
Quote:Really?Originally Posted by Mandu
You didn't understand the article Scythus. I know you say you did but in this case you are wrong. The author of that article actually meant that he agreed completely with what Heinlein said. He meant that his own thoughts were chaotic at best and that Heinlein's writings were so far beyond his comprehension that he was struggling just to get words down on paper. I know you think the author of that paper understood what he was writing but as you can see by my interpretation he obviously didn't.
See how that works?
Sorry but your strawman example doesn't even hold up even under a few sentences from the text.Quote:And yet… Heinlein is wrong on this point. Flatly so.
This commentary is often cited by those who believe in answer number two; it is often the source
of their belief in the correctness of that answer.
But Heinlein is still wrong on this point.
One comment 21 years later doesn't mean one always remembers what he did.Quote:Originally Posted by Mandu
Not intending to insult or infuriate you but arguing that the person who wrote something didn't mean what he thought he meant is about the most specious argument I've ever heard. -
Actually I'm being sarcastic.
-
Quote:Oh yes, because the Nazis were clearly the only fascist regime in history. Ever.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In a thread EXPLICITLY talking about a fictional work that purports to satirize fascism?
It's my response when the person in question brings up things that were plainly addressed in the paper like they hadn't even read that particular passage.Quote:Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
Is this going to be your response every time someone doesn't agree with your assertions? -
The TV shows actually weren't that bad, cartoon included.
And yes, I'm 30, so I remember them well. -
Quote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102034/Originally Posted by Matuse
How can you ruin a franchise when there is no franchise? It's just the one cool movie.
Granted, I find making a bunch of reboots/remakes annoying, but you can't ruin something that never existed to be ruined.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110027/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144964/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299981/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103442/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144714/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147773/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465657/ -
Quote:Well then, if you remember that Heinlein claimed in his assertion about "civil service" is stated flatly in the book to be 19 out of 20 positions in Federal Service, but as James Gifford pointed out, that isn't true. It's actually nowhere stated.Originally Posted by Father Xmas
I read the article fully that's why I was quoting that the author acknowledged that Heinlein said it was all civil service. What I disagree with is the premise that someone analyzing a novel can "prove" that the novel's author doesn't know what he's talking about.
Here's what I think is the problem: memory. There's a twenty-one year difference between Heinlein's writing the book and his comments in the magazine. And he'd written a lot of other books between that span.
Is it not conceivable that he just wasn't remembering correctly on what he put in the book? Not everyone has an eidetic memory.
Problem is, history actually happened. All we know about the world of Starship Troopers is what Heinlein wrote in the book, and the book gives a very strong impression that Federal Service is military in nature.Quote:Let's take another war novel, lets say The Red Badge of Courage and try to determine how the society and government it's set in is structured. Of course that's silly because we all know what society was like back then. But how about a reader who isn't familar with American history at all? Or democracy? Or they are from a very strict caste society? To them the US Civil War and it's government and social norms would be as different as a fictional government and civil order in a Sci-Fi novel.
Not fair using Tolkien. That man was meticulous and detailed about everything. For god sakes, he gave his background notes background notes.Quote:Just because an author doesn't include it in black and white on the page for the reader doesn't mean the author didn't have it worked out. I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't make up the LotR trilogy on the fly. Information that wasn't shared publicly until years later.
Umm... consistency?Quote:This is like the Korra thread where people want explicit info on how the big bads learned a forbidden technique that we saw once in the prequel set 70 years prior. Why do people need to be spoon fed every little bit of trivia of a fantasy/sci-fi universe before they can accept it?
That said, I don't know what a Korra is, couldn't tell you what they looked like.
Guess them's the breaks. It's an old controversy anyway.Quote:There is nothing we can say other that pointing to the author's own words that federal service in the novel is more than just the military. You are steadfast in your position, taking the side that the author didn't know what he was writing about. Nothing we can say will change your mind, nothing you can say will change ours. -
Who cares if its "Pay 2 Win?" If people need to Pay 2 Win, they clearly suck at playing.
-
Twice.
I came. I saw. I conquered. -
Quote:Evidence that you didn't read the paper either, otherwise you would know that the paper acknowledges Heinlein's comment (thus its reason being in the paper) and then proceeds to refute it, showing that Heinlein's claim is not backed up by the book itself.Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Ah ... there is a quote in that article that Heinlein himself defined "federal service" as the entirety of civil service including military and not just military.
Just because the author of that article can construct an argument it's military only doesn't negate Heinlein saying otherwise. Of the two, I'll tend to believe the author of the actual novel and not someone who tries to show the author didn't know what he was writing about.
I mean that's kind of messed up if you ask me. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Nazi Germany wasn't strictly speaking a military dictatorship,Anyone notice what law these two invoked?Quote:Originally Posted by Venture
or Holocaust revisionist's arguments.
-
Quote:And you resort to desperate rationalizing. Wonderful.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Because of the inverted nature of the Federation in Starship Troopers, namely that the military has a certain element of hierarchical superiority over the civilian government, you could argue that statement doesn't even have the same meaning in Starship Troopers it does in most conventional governments.
Nazi Germany wasn't strictly speaking a military dictatorship, but separating the civilian government from the military would be a non-trivial exercise.
To put it another way, if the US decided to make the Secretary of Defense responsible for the post office, technically the postal service could be construed as a part of the military. But I don't think that's what most people mean when they say that Federal Service in Starship Troopers was exclusively military service. -
Somehow I suspect the growing old and having children part was a conscious choice on Connor's part, as that's what he wanted the most of all. Other Immortals might use their Prize of Omnipotence in other ways.
-
Quote:Two words: George Lucas.Originally Posted by Venture
The author cannot be wrong in matters of bare fact by definition.
"Glancing" is not reading.Quote:I glanced at the paper
Then his own text should back him up, as it is, it doesn't.Quote:The book focuses on military federal service because the book focuses on the military. The book is a small slice of what life is like in the world it is set in. If the author says it does not present the whole picture then that is it. It is his world and in statements of fact regarding it, such as "95% of federal service is non-military", he cannot be contradicted.
Then you'll have to admit that the argument that Federal Service is strictly military has a lot of merit.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Why does a military recruiter, in a military recruitment office, discuss the federal service in military terms? Why does Juan's father assume that when Juan announces he's going to serve in the military that it will be military service? Gee, no idea.
Uh, wrong passage. I was referring to this one:Quote:Now you've really stumped me. As I have no idea why you'd be bringing this up. But in this case, I would prefer to quote the actual analysis author:
Not even he had the problem you apparently have.
Quote:Later, Juan is on light duty due to a training injury and is serving as orderly in the company commanders
office. After an ugly confrontation he is directed out of the commanders office:
A remote and unpleasant military training base has civilian clerks? Not Federal Service civil serviceQuote:There was nobody in the outer office, just a couple of civilian clerks. [ ] I doubt if the
civilians could hear [the argument in the inner office] as they were each wearing transcriber
phones and were bent over typersbesides, they didnt matter. [Ch. 6. pp.64-65]
clerks? -
Quote:So tell me, why does Juan's father assume military? Why does the recruiter, a decorated military officer, describe service being military or military support in nature? Why are there civilian clerks on a remote Federal Service installation? And so on and so forth. It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER unless Federal Service is wholly military in nature.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The problem with that analysis is that it fails to account for the blurring of the military and the federal government. The book explicitly states that the federal government is required to find something to do for anyone that volunteers, even if that person is completely incapable of performing any reasonable function in the armed forces. There have to be non-combat places for people to serve. The reason for most of the emphasis on combat-capable armed forces is that the whole intent of federal service is to find those willing and able to make large sacrifices for the state: its intended to be difficult, and its intended to weed out those that cannot make that sacrifice. The most logical reason why military service is highlighted in the novel is that it follows an able-bodied person capable of serving in that capacity. The society in ST could not function if it allowed such people the loophole of serving in capacities well under their ability to serve and for whom no sense of sacrifice would be evident.
Its supposed to be hard, dangerous, and sacrificial. Starship Mailman would have to follow someone who was only genetically capable of delivering the mail for some bizarre reason. Such a person would then be made a mail carrier. Federal law would require it.
The error, again, is the blurring of the military and federal service. The book actually mentions (I don't have it in front of me now so I cannot quote the passage) that some people become medical lab rats if that's the only thing they can do. Its unlikely that means all medical experimental volunteers are performing federal service. It does mean when the federal government places you there you are. So *any* job *could* be federal service if the federal government decides that will be the thing you do to serve your term.
Otherwise, the interpretations the author makes that he believes are the most reasonable also end up contradicting the facts we know about how the system works.
As for the lab rats, you do realize that our troops occasionally sign up to be lab rats for their medical wings, right?
Your argument only implies that you skimmed the paper, as James thoroughly dissects the text. You're wrong, just face it. -
Quote:Except that the author is wrong in this case and the paper highlights this. Did you even read the paper?Originally Posted by Venture
Yeah, heard the criticisms. They're wrong, author says so, the end, thanks for playing.
-
Quote:Wrong.Originally Posted by Venture
"Federal service" in the book was not just the military. It was the entire apparatus of the federal government. The characters in the book went into the military because while Heinlein probably could have written Starship Mailman as a thought-provoking novel it wouldn't have played with the audience he was trying to reach.
http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf -
Quote:In a way you're right, just not for the reasons you're thinking.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That would be a much more efficient description of the movie.
-
Quote:There's that propaganda again, once more proving that you didn't get it. Remember the article I posted?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its another serious problem that the bugs are initially depicted as so strong it takes many humans to bring down one bug, and then later the bugs are depicted as using numbers to overwhelm a small number of humans. The excuse I suppose is that they all learned to kill them better after watching Doogie Howser's PSA.
Victory is inevitable... just because.Quote:“They’ll Keep Fighting – And They’ll Win!” Victory over a foe is not treated as the outcome of careful planning and superior technology, but as an inevitable result of certain decisions. We have a brain bug. We’re going to figure it out. Once we do, we’ll use that information to kill other bugs. There’s no question of likelihoods or possibilities or if-thens. We’ve decided to triumph over the enemy, so we’re going to. Would You Like To Know More? -
Quote:From Wikipedia:Originally Posted by starphoenix
So either it is a typo or the prize has lost its worth.
Quote:After a climactic fight at the Silvercup Studios building in Queens, Connor defeats and beheads the Kurgan and receives the Prize, which manifests itself as a massive quickening. Now mortal and capable of having children, Connor moves back to Scotland with Brenda, and prepares to live out his life with her. With the Prize, Connor has awareness of the thoughts of all the people around the world, and the ability to exert some influence, which he uses to encourage cooperation and peace. -
Quote:Interesting... in both, we have a requirement of serving in the military in order to be able to be allowed to friggin' vote. In both there's rampant racism and endless wars. If this is not fascist, what do you call it?Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
I never saw any fascism in either the book or the movie.