Last edited by Jom; February 03, 2011 at 09:21 AM.
All 100 of them?
Oh and I have to say 100% agreement with the opening paragraph. My parent will be inviting our elderly neighbours to stay with us for a few weeks over Christmas. The old lady was literally in tears because they wouldn't be able to afford heating.
Last edited by René Artois; November 13, 2010 at 01:28 PM.
Jom's editorials get better each issue. I also enjoyed rez's piece on video games; as we have the same tastes in many genres.
I want you all to know how beautiful you are. No body--and nobody--can ever change that fact, and no mirror will ever be able to truly reflect it. The world is a better place with you in it.
Just seen something:
Been in content for over 6 monthsRené Artois, a fresh and very welcome face in Content
Well, in my side of Content.
...pro patria vivendi
First of all a salute to (war)gamers being social philosophers.
Then a point of critique, or two. Open for discussion.
Both in the nanotechnology and in the equality articles there is a tendency to quickly brush over the hard parts.
In nano for instance of the top of my hat I remember the issue with nanoform titanoxide particles used in (ironically) ecological sunprotection lotions that were recently banned for dangers they posed to human health.
The problem part is there and it is real.
Though it is by far less exciting (and lucrative) to prove things in that arena (which is a problem the science-business as a whole suffers: Science in itself is not gainful activity and money for scientific endeavors tends to flow where people expect positive results (think fusion power: for over 60 years it is between "any day now" and "maximum 10 years" away, yet people still believe in it (and pump billions into research) because of the bright future it seems to promise)).
Which in no way shall imply we stop researching nanotechnology or dreaming of its im- and ap- plications. Just be very careful around it and any other "wonder"-technologies.
In the equality article my pet-peeve Mrs Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Maiden and european bridgehead of neo-liberal doublespeak is cited in a way that seemed to make her a real proponent of the "equality of opportunity" school of thought. Quite the contrary.
Equality of opportunity implies equality of upbringing and schooling. Simple as that. So she was talking about it while with her socially divisive legislation she was destroying it for the Britons.
I also love the part where Monsieur Artois quickly brushes over the "hereditary wealth" issue and sidelines it as something a dying species (aristocrats) has to concern itself with, when in reality it is THE key battleground where equality of opportunity is decided.
Thanks for this invigorating read.
You got me waiting for more
Last edited by tofudog; November 27, 2010 at 06:36 AM. Reason: typo
Thanks for the interesting critique of the articles. It's not often that I find readers doing so and it's very refreshing to see it.
Thank you come again. Please also keep in mind that I have just learned this stuff in a one hour lesson as I am still in school doing politics (we started the course in September - exam in January) and I have been "trained" somewhat to write only the bare necessities in an essay to avoid running out of time (this one was done in 30mins inc planning and without books etc as I thought it would be good revision practise for me)Like other types of equality though, it does not accept the idea of inherited wealth such as the aristocracy, as it has not been earned. The belief sometimes, however, may lead to “positive discrimination” in order to give those in a poor background an equal start.
Last edited by René Artois; December 10, 2010 at 03:42 PM.
Dear Mr. Artois,
please pardon the harsh tone of my reply. Had I known that this is just a platform for you to practice your writing I would have been more lenient.
And in this light I think that our misunderstanding deserves further consideration. Your readers do not know what your stance is, if you are not telling. If you cite somebody in a certain context (here Mrs. Thatcher with thoughts on equality) without information as to your view of that, then your interested reader is most likely to assume it is a positive reference. In fact so much so that this is a rhetoric technique of lying without lying, and that was what I - please pardon me - thought what you were doing.
Similarly the "sidelining" issue. I myself like to use the reference to medieval european society to show my view of current issues, but I have to explain what part is metaphor and what part is actual fact, otherwise my audience is as surely deceived as when I lie outright.
The perfect essay is dancing on a razor´s edge between verbosity and sins of omission, you might say.
With that out of the way I have to say I appreciate your efforts and I hope that my critique of your piece may help refine your style - and get a better grade .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)