Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1003 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
24 Dec 12 UTC
And I Thought Texas Threatening Secession Was Good...
http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html

Seriously? This is what 31,000+ people spend their time doing? Get a life… none of us are trying to deport Wayne LaPierre and he has a tad more impact than Piers Morgan.
12 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Diplomacy world cup
I know there is a webdip specific world cup; but there has been a regular (every four year) nations world cup, for the last 8 years.

For more see: www.diplom.org/Zine/W2012A/Babcock/challenge.htm
3 replies
Open
Mujus (1495 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all, and a blessed and prosperous new year.
2 replies
Open
KreIIin (0 DX)
24 Dec 12 UTC
Obama is a Muslim Terrorist.
Discuss.

55 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
24 Dec 12 UTC
Mods - Seeking Help ASAP
I know it's Christmas Eve for some, but any Mods, please check email ASAP. Thanks. (Should be a quick item..)
0 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
The NRA is protecting your freedom.
Form a national database for the mentally ill. But hands off my fuckin assault rifle!
92 replies
Open
Maniac (189 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Another discussion about pauses <yawn>
I thought this topic had been disussed to death. Pauses had to be voted by everyone to apply. However, I now learn that the mods will pause a game that has six votes only if they email the 7th member and he doesn't respond. I'm happy with all 7 or 6 plus an unreplied to email rule, but would like some clarity
0 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Scapegoating Nancy Lanza
m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/23/no-tears-nancy-lanza-newtown-mother
0 replies
Open
ghug (5068 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Preemptive Seahawks Victory Thread
Suck it Obi.
33 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Complimentary Mod/Admin Thread....
Please use this opportunity to say something nice about our Mod Team.
If you can't think of something nice please don't post.
32 replies
Open
shield (3929 D)
23 Dec 12 UTC
Kill it with Fire!
gameID=106875

Not my best played game but always fun to play partysane: Also Germany what the heck were you doing?
2 replies
Open
.Anonymous. (0 DX)
24 Dec 12 UTC
need 1 player
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=106933
20 replies
Open
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
24 Dec 12 UTC
EOG tyran is a shopaholic
13 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
Australia after the 1996 Port Arthur attack
Gun laws don't work?
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/12/20/zo-legde-australie-in-de-jaren-negentig-het-vuurwapenbezit-aan-banden/
(translate.google.nl, Dutch to Your language)
48 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
24 Dec 12 UTC
Oh, Tagggggggggg...
Nobody's stupid enough to believe this bullshit, right?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-no-desire-president-tagg-says-191236665--election.html
6 replies
Open
Strauss (758 D)
24 Dec 12 UTC
Fast Europe-20
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=106924
3 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2611 D(B))
23 Dec 12 UTC
Lusthog Squad
England in game 4, please remind yourself of the game rules.
1 reply
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
23 Dec 12 UTC
Lots of Games Available!
userID=48514 … just got banned. Left 14 games.
0 replies
Open
erik8asandwich (298 D)
23 Dec 12 UTC
Replacement needed details below
The country is france. Here is the game id gameID=106750
0 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
23 Dec 12 UTC
Need Replacement Italy
gameID=106507

Good position, gets a build this coming year, plenty of options.
0 replies
Open
Grimworth (0 DX)
23 Dec 12 UTC
31GB departure in 2 min
31GB departure in 2 min

1spot lef
0 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
23 Dec 12 UTC
E-O-G - Fast game. Join.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=106855
My son is a big minecraft fan
Another great game, this was one I joined after France CD'ed so we can't see who the offender was, then England CD'ed
0 replies
Open
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
23 Dec 12 UTC
Silent night redo EOG
13 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
18 Dec 12 UTC
My New Favorite Bible Passage
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
--Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (That's quite possibly the most horrible-yet-hilarious passage I've ever read that's meant to be taken seriously...can anyone...erm, defend it? At all? If so...you're the most amazing lawyer ever.) xD
Page 3 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
dipplayer2004 (1310 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
Unfortunately nobody nowadays will mind their own business. Fanatic environmentalists feel just as much compulsion to force us all to live their way, and they actually have more political success at it.
ghug (5068 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
By "fanatic environmentalists," do you mean climate scientists who understand that our actions are killing the planet?
dipplayer2004 (1310 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
I mean whatever idiots who decided that we had to get rid of incandescent lightbulbs to "save the planet." Talk about magical thinking.
Jack_Klein (897 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
At least the environmentalists actually attempt to back up their directives with science.

Don't mean they always get it right, but there is at least a process where by which we can adjust the hypothesis to suit facts.

Religion is the opposite. Facts must change to suit the revelation, because the revelation couldn't be wrong.

And you're not answering the question. The Bible and the Quar'an make equal claim to be the Truth as revealed by god.

Please explain why your Truth is true, and their truth is delusional and false.
dipplayer2004 (1310 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
I did answer the question. The Quran and the Bible were compiled differently. Historically they have been approached differently. It is only in the last century or two that some Christians have become misguided and made an idol out of the Bible.

And no, many religious people have adjusted their understandings as science has given us insight. The world is not 6000 years old, and the Flood of Noah was not a literal event--at least not on a worldwide scale. All of humanity are not descended from two people. None of that is really what the religion is about anyway.

And don't tell me that there is scientific basis for saving the planet by getting rid of my lightbulbs, or recycling, or driving a Prius. Some of those things might be good things to do, might save resources or energy, but the people who do those things are expressing their faith in Environmentalism, and get a psychological return on that, no less than a Catholic who goes to Mass or prays the rosary.
Obi-

tl;dnr
and get a life
Jack_Klein (897 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
No, you didn't answer it. You filled up three paragraphs not answering it.

You told me all about how their different kind of books. Congrats. You're still dodging the question.

What makes one True, and what makes one Not True.

Because they can't both be true. I happen to think they're bot Not True, but you obviously have a different opinion.

On the side note, if you really want to compare praying to a sky god, and trying not to be a glutton for resources, you obviously have very little understanding of the matter. You're making the assertion that anybody who attempts to be a little better about consuming resources isn't doing so because they're wanting to be better about consuming resources, but about blind faith.

You're really expressing just about everything I find repugnant about religion.

Avoiding the questions.
Ignorance
False equivalence.
Did I mention ignorance?


I'll reiterate in case you missed it. If you're going to tell me there is no scientific reason to reuse materials previously used, then you're going to tell ~200 years of steelmakers that reusing scrap metal was a fucking stupid idea. And they'd be a bit shocked, because scrap steel is a hell of a buy for those guys.
dipplayer2004 (1310 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
You really cannot read.
I said that those things may be worth doing, but that doesn't mean they will "save the planet" or "stop global warming." The leap from A) me driving a Prius to-- B) the climate will stop changing! is as great as the leap from A) me taking this Eucharist to B) my soul is saved!

Okay, I was addressing how the Bible doesn't claim to be what the Quran does, while you were insisting that it also claims to be God's One True Book. Why I believe the Bible has value, and leads to Truth, is a rather different matter. And again, I don't think you really care to hear what I have to say.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
"Obi-tl;dnr and get a life"

What kind of oh-so-fulfilling life must YOU lead to waste time dragging up the past and spamming my thread with your inane banter, SC...

My my my, what a full life it must be...
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
To the rest of you--Mujus and dipplayer and everyone who, you know, actually came here with something to say rather than inadvertently play the role of troll and mudslinger while still somehow claiming to have a life (I DO feel sorry for you, SC, if your idea of a life is the one you're leading, I'll happily pass for my life of books, films, friends, skepticism, Shakespeare and, you know, life outside WebDip trolling, but you hang onto that if that's all you've got in life, by all means, do try and attempt to pointlessly insult me some more, it's comical, rather like watching a monkey trying to fling his feces at another and instead hitting himself in the face with a fistful of foul fecal failure, ah, allliteration is fun!)--I'll have to take up your points tomorrow.

This is my backup laptop (my main one's died, for some reason the charger isn't functioning) and the keyboard on it is none too good, and of course I need a functioning keyboard to type out responses...

So WE can continue having an intelligent, civilized discourse and, of course, so SC can continue flinging his flame-war feces about.

So, goodnight, goodnight, parting is such sweet sorrow, that I should say goodnight until it be morrow...

Which will actually be pretty damn soon here in LA County (23 minutes, in fact) but you get the point.

So, until tomorrow, folks, when we can answer some of this (BECAUSE I HAVE MY ANSWERS...they might be crap answers for all I know, but I'll be damned if I slip out in the middle of a debate...ok, this keyboard's about had it, too, so, yeah, adios.) ;)
working at a dream job in paradise, don't know if that is a "full life" but I'm sure it beats the crap out of whatever you got ;)
and may I remind you who got these "get a life" attacks in the first place. Yes the undergrad who spends his time crafting chapter length responses to one sentence posts.
FlemGem (1297 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
@ Obi a couple of questions I'm curious about.
1. Are you a doctrinaire pacifist (I happen to be), or is violence sometimes justified?

2. Are there any circumstances in which it is moral for one human to punish another?

3. Given the basic tenets of secular humanism and some basic science: that the universe is impersonal; that life is an aberation, comsically speaking (and if it is not we will almost certainly never know due to the vastness of space); that life is the product of the impersonal plus chance plus time; that all life on earth will be gone in the blink of an eye, cosmically speaking; that life has no intrinsic meaning to begin with; that man is a machine; that we are biologically determined and choice is illusory; on what basis can we then speak /rationally/ about morality? Or about hope, justice, love, or beauty?
krellin (80 DX)
21 Dec 12 UTC
#3....Good god....what an *incredibly* depressing philosophy to guide one through life. You might as well just cheat and steal and do whatever the heck please you, morality be damned, because morality is truly a fictitious construct. Of course, being a biologically determined machine, you will be programmed to believe otherwise and thus act in accordance to a falsehood, thus denying yourself certain pleasure based upon a lie...
Timur (684 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
"a doctrinaire pacifist" - sounds serious, FlemGem. I'd get that seen to.

Thanks, obiwanobiwan, for this most enlightening and amusing post.
Timur (684 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Ok, you probably don't know which one I'm talking about. Neither do I. No matter. Go on.
Blanco (130 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
Pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be down with that, so that's how I'd justify not adhering to the Bible on that one.
Mujus (1495 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Dipplayer, please explain further how humans could have gotten to where we are without being descended from two individuals. I just can't wrap my brain around that one, either evolutionarily or via direct creation, and wonder what other options there might be.
hecks (164 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
I always prefer when the bible sticks to more practical advice. Like Deuteronomy 23:9 - "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:"
dipplayer2004 (1310 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
Well, I'm not a specialist on this, but it is my understanding that there is a Y-chromosomal Adam from whom all people alive today are descended, and a X-chromosomal Eve from whom we are all descended, but that those two individuals lived many years apart. I'm not sure exactly how it works.
Timur (684 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Thanks, hecks, Now I know what that damned paddle upon my weapon is for. Always wondered.
FlemGem (1297 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
@Hecks - pretty good advice from our ignorant bronze-age friends, even if it is cloaked in King James English.
hecks (164 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
@FlemGem - Indeed. It's the same advice the Appalachian Trail Conservancy gives. http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/hiking-basics/leave-no-trace-practices#Waste
Timur (684 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Cats do this naturally, even sans paddles. Does this make them God's chosen ones?
FlemGem (1297 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
"In WHAT sense, sir, in WHAT SENSE AT ALL is it acceptable to CUT OFF A WOMAN'S HAND for crushing another man's testicles, especially when she is doing this in defense of her husband?"

If your laws of retribution call for "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and a woman crushes a man's testicles, exactly what part of her body *should* be forfeit? For you see, Obi, women do not have testicles. They have ovaries, which are internal organs which could not be easily cut out by ignorant bronze-age surgeons. So that is the sense in which it is acceptable to cut off a woman's hand for crushing a man's testicles.

Of course you may question the premise of the law of retribution, but you did not question the premise, you questioned the validity of the argument. I would, as it happens, be very keen to question the premise of retribution, and based on further Biblical revelation I think I have a logical basis to reject retribution. Perhaps we'll find common ground.....

"First, though I hate to have to restate what would seem a most obvious position...
Deuteronomy's laws are backwards, insipid, barbaric and utterly absurd..."

First, you have to restate this position because it is not only not obvious, it is demonstrably false. Consider you own words:
1. Backwards - really? From what vantage point? From the future, of course. Well duh, everything from 3000 years ago is backwards....or is it? Deuteronomy, in fact, contains some extremely progressive laws concerning redistribution of wealth. Despite all our modernity we have not solved the problem of wealth distribution in any meaningful sense...in fact, my concerned liberal friends tell me, our grotesque over-consumption has us on the brink of self-inflicted extinction. So who's backwards? Besides, perhaps it might be a teensy bit more fair to judge the backwardsness of a law by what *preceeded* the law. Progressiveness describes movement towards an ideal, not realization of the ideal, so can you truly say that Deuteronomy is backwards or progressive? No, you can not. You have boldly asserted that you do not know nor do you care about the context of given laws; you are willfully ignorant by your own confidant admission.
2. Insipid - I do not think that word means what you think it means. Deuteronomy is an extremely lively work of legislation, incorporating elements of historical story-telling, theological and philosophical reflection, hair-raising descriptions of calamity and luminous descriptions of prosperity, all alongside the minutiae of bronze-age living. You study literature at the collegiate level and you describe this as "insipid"? This stuff boils your blood and entangles you in lengthy internet disputes with strangers and you call it "insipid"? Inconceivable!
3. Barbaric - I suppose it depends on what definition of the word you're using here, but calling someone "barbaric" is usually a dead giveaway of your own bigotry. If you're referring to corporal punishment, yes, it is barbaric. If you're talking about the concept of morality springing from universal principles and the idea that no person is above the law, I'd say that Deuteronomy was probably well ahead of its time, and conveys a philosophy of law that remains advanced to this day.
4. Absurd - This is an interesting charge. Oxford American defines absurd as "not in accordance with common sense". Most people find the principles of retribution - with which we are mainly engaged - to be very sensible, at least when they're the offended party. "He killed my father and usurped my inheritance; now I will kill him and reclaim my throne". How many Shakespeare plays revolve around revenge? Revenge is as natural as organic pig manure. Which is quite important, because absent the supernatural all we have is the natural, in which case you have the unenviable position of rationally defending why people *should* not behave naturally when there is in fact no alternative.
FlemGem (1297 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
@ Timur - no, cats are not God's chosen just because they bury their poo. Humans can bury their poo with a paddle, which can be used to row a boat, which gives humans a huge advantage over cats when it comes to water-travel. Humans are clearly superior :-)
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
OK, still stuck with the backup laptop, so we'll see how how this goes:

"Obi, to give you credit, your point about genocide is indeed a very good reason to claim that the Bible is not inspired of God. However, it does not outweigh all of the other Biblical evidence of a loving God who did inspire men to write the various books of the Bible through thousands of years of history."

I obviously disagree...this is a God that comes right out and says "I am a jealous God," and commands both fear AND asks for love...

Big Brother comparison aside, does no one see the problem with a relationship where you are asked to both love and commanded to fear your significant other BY your significant other?

That'd seem a rather unhealthy relationship (to use the term so many Christians like to use, and I believe you like to use it as well, Mujus, so you'll excuse my employing it here) at the very least, teetering on the abusive... :/

NOW.

Mujus and the other Christians here are probably ready with an answer involving Jesus, and that's a whole other bag of beans, as it were, and a whole other Testament, so BEFORE we go down that road, BEFORE we even discuss whether or not a "relationship" with Jesus is good, loving, healthy, or any of that...let's first tackle the OT's God. Technically, of course, the OT and NT have the same "God," but I would definitely agree that, were I to read the Bible as a work of literature, and just that, "God" in the OT would seem very different--certainly different enough--from the God in the NT to warrant discussing them in that way, that is, "OT God vs. NT God," examining the similarities and oh-so-many differences.

(For the record, I think it's a difference more in style than substance, I still see the NT God as a big Brother figure at the very least, but I digress.)

My point from all of that, Mujus--JUST take the OT God in your response to my question:

What there do you see which lends itself to the claim of OT God being loving?

Because I do think most here--key word being MOST--would agree that OT God is rather wrathful on the whole, he certainly helps the Hebrews out here and there, but on the whole, he is really a rather wrathful, angry, "jealous God.

The best arguments I can see against that is his aid to the Hebrews in Exodus (and that's still being rather wrathful, really, considering what happens to the Egyptians, and let's not retrace the whole "free will" argument since I know that argument all-too-well by now, in any case, he DOES harden the heart of the Pharoh to prolong the suffering, and what's more, he DOES kill children, not all the guards or soldiers of Egypt, the ones who actually harmed the Hebrews, but the first-born CHILDREN...infanticide all over again, and YES, I KNOW the Egyptians killed sons of the Hebrews in the story as well, my point is, when your supposedly-loving God has the same method of punishment as the villains, ie, killing children...) and the Psalms, which are works of poetry in which authors just say how lovely God is...regardless of the quality of the poetry, it's still just someone else singing God's praises, not actual proof that such a God IS in fact loving.

So, from just the OT, where does your argument for a loving God come from, especially when God seems to go out of his way to act more wrathful than loving and even proclaims--again--that he is, in fact, jealous...NOT a quality you generally want to have in your relationships.

"You are certainly intelligent enough and probably experienced enough to realize that if your argument is based on false assumptions, then it doesn't stand--and one basic assumption you are making is quite obviously that the God of the Bible is not real."

...Well, yes...that's an assumption based on evidence--or, rather, the lack thereof.
There IS NOT any evidence for God...
And modern science essentially blows the Biblical account to pieces...
Not 6,000 but 4.6/7/8 (I've heard all three) BILLION years old is planet Earth...
Not from dust and a rib but natural selection and evolution...
There is no evidence of "intelligent design" within evolution...
Attempts to prove as much have been shown to be demonstrably false...
And so on.

NOW.

If I WANTED to still believe in God at the end of all that, and believe on faith alone a la Kierkegaard, I still could--you still could. After all, that's part of Kierkegaard's point (and a very good point, I think) that religious or spiritual belief should come from faith and faith alone, really, you shouldn't need proof...

I personally find the idea of not needing proof rather foolish (just call me Doubting Thomas, er, Obi) but if someone wants to believe sans proof and call that faith, at least I may say that IS true faith, for as much (or little) as it's worth.

HOWEVER, that requires the believer to, well, have faith and want to have faith...which generally requires precisely what you seem to want rather badly, Mujus, a loving, caring God, and (possibly) a loving, caring Church of his on Earth.

I doubt I need to restate it, but I don't find EITHER proposition to be true--

God is Not Great to me...and I can look back at all three of the Abrahamic religions (or just look at the Middle East, or issues gays face today, etc.) for reasons why not to believe in Churches.

So with no empircal data pointing to God and no moral or spiritual reason to want God to exist...not unwarranted of me at all to take God as a fictional figment.

I'll close that section by restating an old trope:

Which is more likely--that many men created many gods, or that one God created many men which confusedly came to believe in thousands of gods over thousands of years?

"As I once asked my friend who just passed away, "But what if it's true? What if it's real? What if God did come down to Earth in the person of his son, Jesus, teach many disciples his truth, and give up his own life to pay for our sins?""'

I'll let the Old Professor answer this one with his infamous response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg Pretty much my response...

"FlemGem's explanation is certainly possible, and reasonable. You can't reject arguments just because they run counter to yours the way some fundamentalists have done, or you are no better than they are. (Please note all that I'm not referring to fundamentalists in general here.)"

1. His initial response, or the response to my response which I have yet to, erm, respond to? Of the former...ANY attempt to explain away a situation where a woman has her hand cut off for something PERIOD--ESPECIALLY for something as comparatively piddling as crushing the testicles of an assailant--is absurd and immoral, and I have to maintain, intentionally or not...not just a little bit sexist.

2. I'm not rejecting arguments because they don't agree with my line of thinking...I'm rejecting a justification for the mutilation of women...again, period, there is NO justification for that, period, especially given the circumstances given in #1 and, thus, I reject it for the reasons given here and in #1.

"Reason and an open mind are both necessary, and so is a third thing: The willingness to believe the truth, even to seek for it."

I do that and have done that--my perception of "the truth" doesn't line up with yours.
You "believe" Jesus is the way, that's your truth...
It's not mine, I flatly reject it as untrue and immoral.
That does NOT mean I reject the truth, or that I don't look for it...
It's that I've already tried that puzzle piece and found it doesn't fit at all, if you will...
And only a stubborn fool tries to keep hammering in the same puzzle piece after realizing it isn't the right one that fits there, the smart puzzler casts that piece aside, wiser for knowing that's not the one, and continues through the pile methodically until he finds a fit.
Jack_Klein (897 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
I'll second the last bit Obi has here:

If you think about all the reasons you think Zeus or Odin are made up, you may start to understand why I think your god is made up as well.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
@dipplayer:
You're absolutely right--Deuteronomy is a legalistic book. It's as if passages from the US Code were recovered thousands of years from now as part of a holy book of the Americans. They would find it tedious, uninteresting, and perhaps even worthy of mockery. So what? Nobody in modern Christianity is spending much time on Deuteronomy. That's not what the religion is about."

I don't believe I DID reference Christianity in this thread's description, dipplayer...?

I was having fun with a clearly-absurd and immoral passage from the book many claim as a foundational text of morality...to paraphrase Mark Twain, parents are worried about all the violence and smut in TV and movies...and yet they direct their children to the Bible, where Solomon and his thousands of wives/concubines and this brutal, anti-feminist gem may be found as well. ;)

So to be fair, at the outset, I was NOT tackling Christianity here.

"Seriously, if you wanted to encourage people to read Shakespeare, would you let them use Titus Andronicus as their standard?"

I'M SO GLAD YOU ASKED!

(And instantly, everyone else isn't.) ;)

I actually had "Titus Andronicus" as my first Shakespeare play to study in college years and years ago now...and...yes and no is my answer.

From a moral standpoint would I do so?
Oh yes--as unlike in the Bible, where lopping off limbs is A-OK, in Titus, it's not only a tragedy, but a high, HIGH CRIME; where Deuteronomy says "show her no pity," in Titus, Lavinia losing her boyfriend, brothers, hands, tongue, virginity, and finally her life is one of the heights of dramatic tragedy and empathy in that play...

For all it's violence (and it IS Shakespeare's most bloody and, let's be honest, crude tragedy by far, I think something like 12-15 people die in it) "Titus" is very much a play about the HORRORS of violence, factionalism, and, especially towards the end in a speech Titus gives in which he almost becomes atheistic, about the nihilism of life in the midst of such tragedy and violence.

There are two beautiful speeches that are given, one where Titus, after Marcus tells him to govern his grief with reason, exlaims:
"If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes:
When heaven doth weep, doth not the earth o'erflow?
If the winds rage, doth not the sea wax mad, 1360
Threatening the welkin with his big-swoln face?
And wilt thou have a reason for this coil?
I am the sea; hark, how her sighs do blow! "
And so teeters on the nihilist edge there and thereafter, besides trying to grapple with both reason and intense emotion in that speech and using nature-based metaphors to do so...
And a second, even better speech, a reason I WOULD use it for morality, after Marcus does something so seemingly-inconsequential as kill a fly:
"But how, if that fly had a father and mother?
How would he hang his slender gilded wings,
And buzz lamenting doings in the air!
Poor harmless fly,
That, with his pretty buzzing melody, 1510
Came here to make us merry! and thou hast
kill'd him."

THAT speech is where the moralistic weight of the story stems from, dipplayer...
This man, who had once been the most conservative of Romans...
Who'd been a general, killed thousands in battle, killed his own son to uphold tradition--
NOW, after all that's happened to his poor daughter Lavinia, NOW he realizes...

Those wars he foguth and men he slew--they had families...
Mothers and fathers who must've grieved as he is grieving now...
Violence, war, tradition, all these things which Titus once clung to as pillars...
ALL are shown to be wrong or hollow, and NOT the pillars of a moral life.

They may seem like only two speeches amidst all that seat-selling violence (and yes, let's be honest, it WAS the violence that sold the play, after all, so I'm not arguing that that's not the case) but consider their arrangement:

Both in Act III, Scene 1 and Scene 2, which as just about every professor, actor, director, scholar, and Internet-wannabe-scholar of Shakespeare's tragedies ever has said is the Act where crucial, play-changing, pay=-attention-kids moments occur.

Hamlet's "To be or not to be" followed by his spat wioth Ophelia...
Hamlet stabbing Polonius...
Tybalt slaying Mercutio and Romeo Tybalt...
King Lear's famous, transformative, symbolic scene in the storm...
Macbeth seeing Banquo's ghost while no one else does and flipping his lid...
and so on.
When Shakespeare wants emphasis on something in the middle of his tragedies...
More often than not, he puts these transformative moments in Act III.

So, we get the violence which PRECEDES these speeches in Acts I and II...

But the morals of family, non-violence, and then either a turn towards nihilism or just an abject questioning of what is just at all...

THESE comprise Act III, and these are the moral focal points of Shakespeare's play, dipplayer, so yes, I'd teach it for moral reasons, if I believed in that sort of thing...what's more, I probably don't have to tell you, Shakespeaer's soure material for this play is Ovid's poem largely, so there's stuff to draw off there.

NOW.

If you mean "Would you teach this as the paragon of Shakespeare's works, Obi?" the answer's obviously no, but not because the morals are lacking, but rather just because from a stylistic and literary point of view this play's easily Shakespeare's mot crude tragedy.
Granted I don't at all think it's his worst (I think it's themes, Gothic atmosphere, and intensity make it more enjoyable than, say, "Julius Caesar," and I might note that the famous "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech there is ALSO in Act III, continuing my point on emphasis there) but it's by no means his best.
The Core Four (Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, and King Lear) are all so much better comparing Titus to them is almost like comparing this take on Titus and Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot, George Orwell, and Harold Bloom's best essays on him (and yes, Bloom dislikes Titus, I'll address that point in a moment) and then Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, those are both ahead as well...Coriolanus...hmmm...I'd have to think about that one, but you get my point, NO, stylistically, Titus Andronicus isn't Shakespeare's best.

BUT...nevertheless...

I WOULD teach it in high school over, say, any of the Core Four, save perhaps Macbeth.
"But that's insanity, Obi, you just said they're far, FAR better plays!"
And they are...but they're also better in part because they're far, far more mature and complex plays, in their composition, characters, and themes...and far too many people get lsot or frustrated with Shakespeare right off the bat because they can't understand the long speeches of Hamlet or why King Lear is such a tragic figure...

They get started off with the gems, sure, but that's like taking me and expecting me to do B/C Level Calculus when I can barely solve for X and Y squared, as it were.
I'll just get frustrated, understandably not be ABLE to understand, and quit.
And then I'll miss out on all the beauties Calculus has to offer, right?'

So, teach Titus--PACKED full of action, it's not AT ALL dull (that's one thing, like it or hate it, you have to say about it) or slow-paced, the conflict's easier to comprehend, perhaps, than other Shakespeare plays for a beginner, the language is simpler and less ornate...it's also not as sharp adn not nearly as good as the Core Four, but that's why this is a good stepping stone play, to get your feet wet with a Shakespeare play where there's plenty of action, easier language, and it IS shorter than several of the other, better tragedies (excluding the one of the Core Four I excluded from my "Don't teach to beginners" list, that is, "Macbeth," which is of course the shortest Shakespearean tragedy and is the other tragedy I'd recommend teaching first, as it is the shortest, is one of the best, and also has plenty of action...it's more complex, but also shorter, so it's a trade-off for first-time Shakespeare students, I suppose, which they'd prefer, a shorter, more complex play, or slightly longer, simpler, but not nearly as good play.)

"How barbaric that work is!"

See the above on why that's not only not the case, but a BAD misreading of the work, in my opinion.

(And before someone starts--show me where in Deuteronomy chopping off a woman's hand is shown to be BAD, and I'll agree I misread it...but as you said, it's legalistic, so to be fair, another example...show me where God, Moses, or anyone says "Gee, that was a crummy thing we did, killing the sick, elderly, and the children of the Amalekites" and I'll agree that I misread that little genocidal passage. Again, I don't have a problem with VIOLENCE in stories...I'm a Shakespeare fan, after all...I have a problem with what sort of violence is endorsed, against whom, WHY it is endorsed and, indeed, if it IS endorsed at all or, as is the case in Titus, if violence is shown to be a terrible, terrible thing, so terrible that the once-great general Titus laments the mere swatting of a FLY, so terrible is the cost of violence and so precious the ties of family.)

"Or King Henry Sixth! Tedium!"

...Yeah...a bit...lol...maybe it's because I'm not a resident of the UK and thus it's not my history, but as much as I love Shakespeare and Henry VI Parts 1-3 are decent plays...yeah, they CAN get a bit tedious, you do have to be honest about that (but hey, it caps off with Richard III, which is fun-fun-fun, especially ion the Ian McKellan version where he REALLY plays up the whole "Yeah, I'm the villain...and I'm gonna have FUN WITH THIS, DAMN IT!" angle, lol...)

"There can't possibly be anything to this Shakespeare guy, if you want to focus on those."

I DEFINITELY disagree, as I've already said, especially with regards to "Titus."

"But, no, you'd point them to Macbeth, to Hamlet, to Lear, to Twelfth Night, to Midsummer Night's Dream. In the same way, if you want to talk about the Bible, talk about Genesis, about the Gospels, the Psalms, Isaiah, Job, 1 Samuel and 1 Corinthians."

1. I think I've effectively disproven your theory by now that I WOULD point to just those plays, or plays like them, and not to other, "less desirable" plays such as you listed, by virtue of me, well, just giving a very, very short (and believe me, comparatively, that IS a short) defense of their Shakespearean quality...

2. For fairness' sake, I'll give the best argument against "Titus" (since if we do the Henrys we'll be here forever) I know, namely, Harold Bloom's, wherein he essentially argues that A. this is a money-making revenger's tragedy, not really intended as a work of art, and B. any attempt to argue there is artistry behind it is undercut by the extreme violence, over-the-top situations, and moments of sheer comedic camp (the best example--and the one he uses--being where hand-less Lavinia carries the severed hand of her father in her mouth like a dog.) My response, VERY quickly, as this is already Shakespearean in length as far as responses go (and my GOOD laptop is fixed now, so as soon as this post is done I can switch back finally, hooray) would be A. you can make the same charge that Hamlet is "just a revenger's tragedy" as, well, it is a revenger's tragedy in it's most basic form (something T.S. Eliot takes issue with a bit in his own essay "Hamlet and His Problems," which is probably the best and one of the most famous critiques against the de facto pearl among pearls in the Shakespearean canon, but one revenger's tragedy and high-brow literary critique at a time) and so just because it IS a revenger's tragedy and thus WAS designed to draw people with that same formula as that's what sold doesn't mean that there aren't themes or characters which flesh that form out and make it work, as is obviously the case with "Hamlet" for most, and B. Bloom's argument that the over-the-top violence and camp comedy elements under-cut any real tragedy or genuine moments is an understandable criticism, and does have a definite amount of weight to it, but I wouldn't at all go so far as to say it destroys the ability to take the play seriously or find anything besides bawdy violence, rape, and genuinely-odd moments trying to pass for comedy...after all, to take that other, very violent, short play I'd teach to introduce people to Shakespeare, "Macbeth," THERE is featured a seemingly-out-of-place seen in which, just after Duncan is murdered and just before things really start getting out of hand, there's the infamous scene with the character of The Porter who, well, essentially shows up, is very, very drunk, spouts off quite a bit, does just about anything for even the cheapest laugh, and then exits without further context or consequence. It's just as much a "What the HELL?" moment as Lavinia carrying her father's severed hand in her miuth like a dog, and there are not one but two complementary explanations for the existence of both scenes--Shakespeare likes to show that even in the midst of tragic moments there ARE moments of irony and humor (and vice versa with comedies, that even in silly moments there can be moments of seriousness) and, of course, Shakespeare again also needed to attract people to the theatre, so throwing in the odd comedic scene or display of violence helped...after all, he WAS competing with the next door neighbors, who had bear baitings at their place next to the Globe, so this was the level of entertainment you had to compete with and, arguably, pander with occaisionally to make money. If you're like Bloom, you'd probably argue that it was more pandering and less art; in both cases, I think the form of one serves the function of the other, that is, yes, both scenes are pandering a bit, but they DO also serve, in a comedic fashion, serious themes in their plays--the Porter's drunken state and haphazard attitude may easily be seen as a metaphor for the crazed political climate at the moment, and we certainly see Macbeth "drunk on power" later on in the play, whereas, silly as it looks, Lavinia carrying her father's hand like that ties in a bit with the theme of family--Titus and Lavinia have now both lost their limbs and, essentially, their livelihood, but they still (for the moment) have each other, and that compensates for their lack of limbs at this moment.

3. Hamlet, Lear, Twelfth Night and then probably The Taming of the Shrew or Much Ado About Nothing over A Midsummer Night's Dream (I like it, of course, but do think it's a tad overrated, the same way I think "Antony and Cleopatra" is sadly underrated) and you HAVE to have Richard III or Henry V in there, but whatever. :p

4. To take just your list before I say why I utterly, utterly, utterly disagree:
Genesis--really? You'd take where the logical and moral failings all start? Not to mention how utterly tedious those geneologies are (and yes, I get the point of them, just like the Henry VI plays, though, that doesn't stop them from being just a tad tedious.)

The Gospels--Better than Genesis, I guess, but not saying much, and they're of drastically differing quality...Matthew and Luke, to me, seem far better written than Mark or John (NOT a fan of John at all, but that's probably a given) and yet most scholars would say Mark is the oldest...in any case, I'll concede that, like Genesis, they're all necessary reading for grappling with the West in any real cultural sense, and they ARE all better than Genesis, but while I'd again give Matthew and Luke/Luke-Acts (if we take the theory it's the same author and thus one large texts or two texts that act as a sort of two-parter, as it were) a few extra points over the other two on just the basis of their literary and (attempted) moralistic quality.

The Psalms--no complaints there, there are some genuinely good poems and ideas expressed there...some ideas I don't like, either, but then that's sort of a given with me and the Bible at this point, now, isn't it? ;) I WOULD say there's an issue taking the Psalms, but not at all due to their quality, and I'll say why in a bit.

Isaiah--eh...I understand why it's important prophetically, but even still, not a fan...

Job--Oh, I LOVE JOB, but for all the wrong reasons, lol, for me, that book almost ITSELF provides a moral argument for not following this so-called loving God (and I know that's not the intent of the book--though it'd be hilarious if it WAS actually written by some Bronze Age-atheist trying to write a parody, because that's honestly what the book feels like, a parody of just what a complete and total ass God is in his "relationship" with man, here personified by his essentially killing off Job's family and doing other unspeakable things to him TO WIN A BET...WITH *SATAN!* xD Come on, now, THAT is pretty funny, and if it weren't part of the Bible...doesn't that sound almost like a parody of God that an atheist might make? The book even opens with God and Satan just sort of strolling up to one another as if at the Cosmic Water Cooler...
"Hey, Satan, check out my main man Job! He looooooves me so much...love that guy!"
"Betcha 50 bucks I can get him to hate you by totally ruining his life and killing his family."
"You are SO ON!"
;)
And yes, I KNOW that's not the intent of the book, I'm just saying, it's hilarious in it's own right, it almost seems like a Monty Python spoof of the Bible...I WILL credit the actual text's intent for at least TRYING to tackle the Problem of Evil, and, indeed, admitting that it IS a question to be asked, why a good, loving God would allow bad things to happen to good people, and I like that it's almost structured in the form of a Socratic Dialogue in parts with Job and his hilariously-cruel friends...it naturally falls short for me when essentially God's response to all this is "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME! I DID A, B, C, D, I DO E, F, G, G, H, WHAT DO YOU KNOW?!" when, in fact, science tells us now God does NOT do those things (at least not that we can tell) and it doesn't really answer Job's question beyond "How dare you question me, I'm GOD!" which I suppose IS the answer--or one--the text provides...so in fairness, YES, I LOVE the Book of Job, for all the wrong reasons, true, but also because I do give it credit for at least trying to tackle the issue, and it DOES stray from the general formula of a lot of OT narratives...which lends to it feeling so odd and different in places--case in point, Satan just sort of strolling up to God and the two making a bet, that's really something you could see the GREEK gods doing more than the Judeo-Christian deities, so that combined with the Socratic nature of the dialogue makes me wonder if there might have been some Greek influence on the text--yet it's because it's so different from the rest of what I consider good words attached to varying degrees of story achievement and moral or immoral teaching.)

1 Samuel...oy...don't get me started on the Amalekites thing again, lest SC and I start another war over that little infanticide/genocide-laden passage that god condones and orders (as opposed to Shakespeare, who has Macduff act rightfully appalled and full of sorrow followed by resigned rage after Macbeth kills all HIS little children...and Shakespeare's implication Richard III kills his nephews and thus also commits infanticide and is ALSO painted as a wicked villain by that point...so yeah, at least twice bloody, bloody Shakespeare condemns infanticide, and twice--Exodus with the first-borns of Egypt and here in 1 Samuel--God says it's A-OK, just as long as it's the "right" kids that are being killed...uh-huh..."

1 Corinthians--I'll be honest and say THAT one I haven't read yet, as by the time it was time to do so this semester I had 2 finals and 2 17 page papers to write and turn in, so that one got skipped over, and I won't unfairly knock a work I haven't read (I made that mistake with the better-than-expected-though-it-still-fell-short "The Hunger Games" when I bashed that here before actually reading it, won't do that again, lol) so we'll see if I can get to that one this break.

OK, dipplayer.

If THAT isn't a thorough response...then at least it makes up for it by being tl;dr for everyone not seeking a cure for insomnia. ;)

And so I post, and will be right back on my other laptop...exit, stage right... ;)

Page 3 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

117 replies
Strauss (758 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
Fast Europe-20
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=106842
0 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
When to attack a buffer state
I can never get this right.
3 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (873 D)
20 Dec 12 UTC
Multi-person single-accounting
We all know it's against the rules for one person to have multiple accounts. Is is also against the rules for one account to be used be multiple players (none of whom have any other accounts) ?
23 replies
Open
ghug (5068 D(B))
21 Dec 12 UTC
Replacements Needed
A player was banned from gameID=104812 and gameID=104878.

PM or post if interested.
4 replies
Open
TheMinisterOfWar (553 D)
21 Dec 12 UTC
Small question
Sometimes in the archives I find games in which somebody RESIGNED. How does one do that? There isnt any button to do that right?
11 replies
Open
TheMinisterOfWar (553 D)
22 Dec 12 UTC
Mod: pause this game?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=105130

Russia has quested a Pause that has been granted by all players. But he's forgotteen to pause himself. To prevent disbalance or even CDs, please pause. Thanks!
2 replies
Open
Page 1003 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top