"For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."
"For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."
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.
Bitter is the wind tonight,
it stirs up the white-waved sea.
I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.
"For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."
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
"For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."
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 just used a single quote from the lady. Not sure how you got a real proponent of equality of oppurtunity from that. You said "she was talking about it" which is exactly what I meant, but as I thought it would be deviating from the topic somewhat to go on about Thatchers social and economic policies I left it out.
Originally Posted by tofudog
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.
Sideline it where exactly? All that gets said is that inherited wealth goes against equality of oppurtunity. If you thought I was inferring it was dying out by the use of the word aristocracy, please feel free to use other examples such as "anybody with rich parents".
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.
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)
Last edited by René Artois; December 10, 2010 at 03:42 PM.
Bitter is the wind tonight,
it stirs up the white-waved sea.
I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.
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 .