I am seventeen and old enough for die for my country, a perverse right granted at sixteen in Britain and seventeen here. If I did so an died, I would be called a hero, since I choose not to, I am unwanted. To oppose war at seventeen is naïveté, to join in is heroism. My generation is more valuable in death than in life, there is some sense to this, students are dangerously fickle and have toppled more than one established order. I do not seriously desire to do the latter, although I would like to see both more liberty and more equality. I do not wish to overthrow society, I wish to join it, but I am young and fit for patronization. A young person's voice, if it sounds at all, is but a voice in the wilderness. Rarely do such voices echo, and mine will not be among those that do. I have grown to accept that it is not given for me to lead men, although I have not yet grown accustomed to being blindly led. I stand alone, a blind seer gifted not with prophesy and a mad philosopher gifted not with thought. What a piece of work is man, and how like man I am, although great distance separates us as we wander in our lonely spheres.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I wonder if increasing liberty is often at odds with creating equality?
Edit: By the way, since I was critical of your style in other threads, it's only fair to note that I found this post very readable. I'm impressed that you are willing to do that.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: If I did so an died, I would be called a hero
Wrong. We dilute the meaning of hero by applying it in a blanket manner to everyone. For a true description of hero, see this, Audie Murphy, and then tell me that Jessica Lynch was a hero.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I wonder if increasing liberty is often at odds with creating equality?" Total equality, yes. But there is no liberty without equality of opportunity. It bothers me little that some should be rich and some poor, it bothers me much more that many are doomed to stay poor.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I guess you have to wait a year...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know, Pel, I'm not intending to be patronizing about this, but you really ought to print out your post and threads here, and save them. I bet it would be really interesting for you when you are older to be able to look back and revisit the passions and opinions that you held dear at age 17.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
A year toward what goal? The only goal I move irrefutably closer to each day is death. Adolescence is an existential state in which one is aware of one's ever encroaching death but cannot yet be certain that we will live.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:For a true description of hero, see this, Audie Murphy, and then tell me that Jessica Lynch was a hero.
It's interesting to note that your prime example of a hero is someone largely recognized as a hero for killing 240 people.
Not that I don't consider Audie Murphy a hero, but I do so because he most likely saved many of his fellow soldiers, not because of how many Germans he managed to kill.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Umm, I'd say that Phanto was referring to waiting a year till being granted adult priveleges such as being able to vote. This is the voice you are lamenting not having as a teenager, isn't it?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:You know, Pel, I'm not intending to be patronizing about this, but you really ought to print out your post and threads here, and save them. I bet it would be really interesting for you when you are older to be able to look back and revisit the passions and opinions that you held dear at age 17.
The way our society treats its young people is schizophrenic and hypocritical to a large degree. I don't think that Pel's arguments are any less valid because he is one himself. If I wasn't about to go out for lunch, I would post more.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I just want to jump in and agree that this is a much more readable and laudable post than others you have written recently. Good on ya'.
I'm not without sympathy for your position, and I recall being bitter about being old enough to die for my country and yet not old enough to have a beer. Age discrimination does indeed work both ways. Nonetheless, I can't deny that people change a LOT between 17 and 23. I also can't deny that I have changed more since 35 than I did from 17 till then. People are individuals, not textbooks. Unfortunately general policies, by definition, have to be based on general behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I stand alone, a blind seer gifted not with prophesy and a mad philosopher gifted not with thought.
If you believed this, you wouldn't've said it.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Your situation has alot to do with the culture you are in too Pel. For example, when you said "To oppose war at seventeen is naïveté, to join in is heroism". This might be true where you live but it certainly isn't indicative of the general attitude towards war in the world (and even in the west). I for one would consider someone who refused to fight in a war they believed was unjust a "hero" in the same way people where you live would use it for a soldier. And please don't get too down about your lack of authority or voice in this world. You will find that as you get even a little older, opportinuties to make a real difference will become much more available, it is just up to you to refrain from being apathetic, and take up those opportunities (I'm thinking of things like that kid who started War Child).
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
please correct me if I'm missing your point, but what I got out of this thread is that you think it's unfair that enlisting in the military generally garnishes respect towards young men and women while staying home and verbally opposing war is generally not.
The problem I see in the argument is that it's not taking everything into account. If the two routes were equal then the dichotomy would be unfair. i.e. people who turn left at this intersection are viewed as respectable while people who turn right are not.
This is largely not the case. When an individual willingly joins the military they are knowingly placing themselves on a path that will involve great sacrifice, physical and mental stress and quite possibly giving up one's life for a cause other than their own. it can show a great deal of commitment and is unarguably a life-changing event. I won't argue that there aren't some/many who join because they lack direction in life and yearn for a time when they don't have to make decisions and the basic necessities are provided for them. though even then it only slightly detracts from the honor of the choice as the same hardships must be endured.
On the other hand, stepping back and being a conciencious objector and perhaps vocal opposition to conflict does not garner the same respect (according to your argument). To a certain extent this is true. In the right small circles this kind of decision is highly respected (i.e. my highschool youth groups etc) but I'll admit that is few and far between. I would argue though that thoughtful, well-stated and even-handed opposition to war can in fact make you out to be both highly respected and in the eyes of many a hero, you just have to work for it a lot more.
So why does this choice not garner/warrant as much instant respect? to take this stance are you enduring any hardships? does your life change from whatever level of comfort that it started at? can you do this on some level without really putting any effort forth at all?
If you make an outstanding effort to be well informed on the matter, wade through communities where you must fight constantly to uphold your principles and make an outstanding effort to persuade others to your view (to the point of self-sacrifice) THEN you may approach the honor of being a hero. (think of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Ghandi and many others)
I would say that in today's society you aren't looked down on for not enlisting, you just arent raised up instantly either. chosing not to enlist and/or to oppose war is as a first step merely refusing to throw yourself into the tempering fire that is the military. if you can find your own tempering fire then it's worth something, but otherwise it's not.
I can claim to refuse to take drugs, but until I am exposed to the decision and actively do something to avoid them it doesn't mean much.
note: all these arguments on the issue really are insensitive to age, and come from someone who has not joined the military or really gone through a tempering fire of any sort (barring perhaps a BS in engineering), but I also don't expect anyone to be praising my life extrodinarily at this point.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive Pelegius attends a private high school in Texas with a long history of ROTC and military training.
I imagine that the views one might be hearing there are quite a bit different from the prevailing views in other parts of the country (and other high schools).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pel, if you are interested I could send you links to all sort of peace organizations. You could have the opportunity to work and sacrifice for peace in the company of others.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jhai is right, to an extent. My high school has such a history, but this is tempered with a religious affiliation to a Church which is largely pacifist. This bizarre situation is mostly handled by ignoring it, but, in general, I would say that most faculty are liberal and antiwar and most students conservative and pro-war. On an interesting note, the NHS chapter would be spilt about 50-50 in a debate on the war, while the rest of the school would have a much smaller percentage of objectors.
However, military service was discussed more as an example of a situation than as an independent issue.
Edited by Pelegius becouse he had no idea what the last bit meant.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel, don't be in such a rush to grow up. You'll get there eventually. Right now enjoy having so few responsibilities.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: It's interesting to note that your prime example of a hero is someone largely recognized as a hero for killing 240 people.
If you look at his MOH write-up, it is more about selflessly acting to preserve the lives of others.
The main reason that I chose Murphy is because Pel made a reference to serving in the military as a hero. The simple act of serving does not qualify you as a hero.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Adolescence is an existential state in which one is aware of one's ever encroaching death but cannot yet be certain that we will live.
This just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If you look at his MOH write-up, it is more about selflessly acting to preserve the lives of others.
I'd say this isn't quite accurate. He acted selflessly to preserve the lives of American others. His method of doing so was to take the lives of a massive number of German others.
This makes him an American hero, for sure, but I'm not sure the German people would recognize him as such. I'm sure there are comparable stories of German soldiers, but would you consider them heroes? I'd imagine not, which perhaps makes the term "hero" a very relative term, one which is subjective to the person making the claim.
It would be an interesting thread to discuss such things, and if I remember correctly we had a similar thread around the time of 9/11. Probably another around the Lynch publicity.
I myself am very unlikely to try and decide who deserves to be called a hero and who doesn't.
I don't see why someone like Lynch, who delivered supplies to our soldiers through dangerous areas, is less of a hero than someone on the front-line who kills several enemy soldiers. The front-line soldier is in more danger, and you may argue that makes him more of a hero, in which case we enter territory where there are degrees of heroes.
Edit:
Back to Murphy...
Do you think that if he had saved as many Americans as he had, as selflessly as he did, and under as much danger as he was in, in a way that did not involve mass killing, would he still be a national icon?
Let's say that he selflessly, and under great danger, allowed his fellow soldiers to escape by creating a diversion.
Would they have made movies about him? Would people, such as yourself, still hold him up as the ultimate hero?
I'm not convinced of this. I'd bet that a huge portion of his hero status is because he was very very good at killing people.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
So basically, to sum all that up:
"One nation's terrorist is another nation's hero" (and vice versa)
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:I don't see why someone like Lynch, who delivered supplies to our soldiers through dangerous areas, is less of a hero than someone on the front-line who kills several enemy soldiers.
She was captured during the course of regular duty and did nothing to distinguish herself from any other soldier.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:She was captured during the course of regular duty and did nothing to distinguish herself from any other soldier.
But isn't that soldier's "regular duty" to be at the front line and killing the enemy?
Or are you saying that the only heroes in the armed forces are those who perform their duty in an exceptional way?
If so, I'd imagine this involves taking a greater risk than normal, in a selfless way.
But say someone took a larger than normal amount of risk, but was unsuccessful in their attempt, and died without making any difference.
Say Murphy ran up to the forward machine gun and immediately was killed by the first German that shot at him. Would he still be a hero?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Reading more from the wikipedia article, I also started thinking about this question:
If someone does something terrible later in life, and something heroic in their early life, are they still a hero?
Is being a hero a permanent status, or does it take your entire life into perspective?
What got me thinking about this was this:
quote:His first wife, Wanda Hendrix, often talked of his struggle with this condition, even claiming that he had at one time held her at gunpoint.
What if he had shot and killed her? Would you still have held him up as the ultimate hero? Would the fact that he performed heroic acts excuse his later misdeed? Can someone be both a hero and a murderer?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Would they have made movies about him? Would people, such as yourself, still hold him up as the ultimate hero?
Please don't misrepresent what I said. Audie Murphy is not the ultimate hero. However; when speaking of the military and it's heroes, Audie Murphy will always be near the top.
quote: Say Murphy ran up to the forward machine gun and immediately was killed by the first German that shot at him. Would he still be a hero?
Yes, albeit a dead and unsuccesful hero. The nature of heroics rewards achievement, not failure.
quote: But isnt' that soldier's "regular duty" to be at the front line and killing the enemy?
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Yes, it is their regular duty. It's what they signed up to do. It doesn't automatically qualify them as a heroic figure.
quote:Or are you saying that the only heroes in the armed forces are those who perform their duty in an exceptional way?
Such is the nature of heroism.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, if he saved lives doing so, just as great a one. Google Sgt. Rafael Peralta for an example of someone whose heroism was similar to the situation you describe. His lack of recignition is more due to the unpopularity of this war and the lack of media cooperation, relative to WWII.
If he just ran up and died, with no effect on the battle, he'd probably be viewed as stupid.
As for Lynch, being in combat was most definitely not part of her regular duty and getting captured is a fairly unlikely and extraordinary situation for her.
Angio, your statement does a huge disservice to uniformed soldier. It is true that some "terrorists" may be "heroes" to some people, but the two labels are not equivalent and trying to make them so does a tremendous injustice to the language, much less to most actual heroes.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Can someone be both a hero and a murderer?
I don't know. I guess it would be subjective to the situation. You could certainly hold up his Medal of Honor description and point to it as an act of heroism, and at the same time show examples of his typical behaviour later in life.
Edit: After some googling, I noticed that many articles were attempting to link PTSD to his later behaviour in life.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Can someone be both a hero and a murderer?
I think I read a series of books that had a main character that dealt with this dilemma. I can't remember the name though... 'something Game' I think?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Yes, it is their regular duty. It's what they signed up to do. It doesn't automatically qualify them as a heroic figure.
quote:Or are you saying that the only heroes in the armed forces are those who perform their duty in an exceptional way?
Such is the nature of heroism.
Well then we have reached a point of understanding.
Many people believe that by signing up and joining tthe armed forces, you have automatically become a hero, because this act itself is heroic.
I haven't formed an opinion on this, but I have seen it expressed many many times, especially here on hatrack around 2002-2004.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think I read a series of books that had a main character that dealt with this dilemma. I can't remember the name though... 'something Game' I think?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think the act itself is often heroic, and the character of service of the vast majority of people in the military is also heroic, but merely putting on a particular set of clothes does not eradicate people's faults or make them paragons.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pel, while it is true that young people are not often given the same respect and standing as those older (even when you turn 18, then 21, then 25, you will still see this same trend), that does not mean that all young people are relegated to such a fate.
You have it in you to do great things, even at 17, if you just apply your will to the task. I taught a girl who was 13 and already owned her own party planning company for elementary school students. At 14, she expanded to hire a secretary who was several years her elder. While her goals were small - to run the company through high school to make money to pay for an Ivy League school should she not receive a scholarship - she could easily turn that entrepreneurial spirit to some other task.
Her clients didn't mind that she was young - many of them embraced it - instead focusing on her competence and success.
There are other stories of students I have taught (and those I have read about) using their brains and savvy to carve a place for themselves in an adult world. There are countless more stories of adults who live in obscurity without ever having even the voice you have enjoyed her on hatrack - only those stories never get told.
Find an avenue of pursuit, and pursue it with a will. You will find that being 17 is not the impenetrable obstacle it seems.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"This just doesn't make sense." Yes, it does, if we assume that life is more than just a precursor to death, then few, if any, youths know that they will truely live, many people don’t, you know.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Yes, it does, if we assume that life is more than just a precursor to death, then few, if any, youths know that they will truely live, many people don’t, you know.
No one , old, young, or middle-age, knows how long they will live. It's youthful arrogance on your part to assume that it's only important to the young.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:You know, Pel, I'm not intending to be patronizing about this, but you really ought to print out your post and threads here, and save them. I bet it would be really interesting for you when you are older to be able to look back and revisit the passions and opinions that you held dear at age 17.
The way our society treats its young people is schizophrenic and hypocritical to a large degree. I don't think that Pel's arguments are any less valid because he is one himself. If I wasn't about to go out for lunch, I would post more.
Did I say, or even imply, that his arguments are less than valid? If that implication was taken, it certainly wasn't intended.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"No one , old, young, or middle-age, knows how long they will live." Not how long, but how well. It is easier, says Socrates, to live a long life than a good one.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not sure I agree with him on that. A good life is totally in your control, but a long one isn't.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It is easier to live a long mediocre life than a long good one, perhaps? I think the emphasis is that continuing day to day is not as difficult as making an effort to live well.
That said, living a good life or a mediocre life or a bad life is all up to your motivation. One could, say, spend their entire lives bandering about with words on internet fora (hehe... sorry, still can't say that with a straight face), or one could spend their lives taking action and sculpting a place in the world - or a mixture of both.
The young worry about what their lives will be like, often at the expense of giving up wonderful years worth of potential with the excuse of "I'm too young and no one will take me seriously". The old know what their lives were like, and hope to make the best of the years they have left, often wishing they hadn't squandered their youthful years. Those in between can look back at what they have done, and look forward to what they will do - with mixtures of the fears of both young and old.
Pel is simply consumed by the angst of a life not yet started. He worries about what it will be like instead of actually getting things moving. It's like standing at the side of a pool wondering if the water's cold, refusing the opinions of those already in the water because they've become accustomed to it already - you don't get a lot of swimming done that way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:To oppose war at seventeen is naïveté
I think you are over-generalizing immensly to make a statement like this.
quote:although great distance separates us as we wander in our lonely spheres.
This gives me images of those big balls that (in my mind) New Zealanders love to roll around in when they're not bunji jumping.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
so is it just me or is anyone else really at a loss for what Pel is trying to say in this thread?
you keep bringing up issues that are more or less insensitive to age, but then bringing up age somehow in all of them even though it has no bearing.
1)Military service versus opposition (keep in mind that I also attended a Benedictine Military High School, though in Illinois instead of texas) 2)not knowing how long one has to live 3)the difference between leading a good and/or a long life.
please do one of the following: 1) clarify yourself in the case that I'm just being unfortunately obtuse and unable to see your point(s) 2) make a point rather than just randomly rambling from unrelated topic to unrelated topic
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Oh, I sort of see what you were saying. It's just that it was hidden under a lot of poorly worded philosophical rambling.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Opposing a war is risk-free, for the most part. Participating in one is not. You don't see the disparity there?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope that you are not diminishing the sacrifices that people make when they devote their lives to opposing war? Including some very real physical risks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Has anybody died from opposing this war in Iraq?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am mostly refering to spending significant amounts of time in prison, as well as financial and personal sacrifices. But to answer you question, there have been peace activists in the region that have been killed. And enough that have been under fire that even I know several personally.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
TheGrimace, the only significant point I made was #3, and the inability to fortell whether one will live such a life. I regret now having mentioned military service.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Personally, I'm enjoying being a teenager. In four years, I won't be one anymore, so I figure, enjoy it while I can. You're only young once, then you can be an adult for the rest of your life.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto:
quote: Adolescence is an existential state in which one is aware of one's ever encroaching death but cannot yet be certain that we will live.
This just doesn't make sense.
It does. It is pretentious, but I got his point even if I rolled my eyes as I did. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wait.....did I just miss something?
Irami and I agreed?
On Hatrack? On a topic other than music?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Sorry, Pel. I'd have to say that the bulk of teenage "oppression" arguments have to do with having responsibilties without getting privileges in return. Welcome to being a grown up.
I'm not much older than you so don't think of that as patronizing. It's more an, "Ah, now you're starting to get it. Welcome to the club."
Responsibilty isn't a one for one trade. You don't get something cool every time more is expected from you. Let's be honest, do you really need a beer to serve in the military? Why would the ability to die in war translate to the right to imbibe alcohol?
Heck, I pay Social Security taxes every month and all I get are more retirees moving to Florida and whinning that we need to cover their meds they can't afford. Where's my reward? Old people doing 30 in the left hand lane? 4pm dinner specials?
I'm a little wistful for the days when I was passionate about injustices. I was going to be an activist and change the world. My advice to you is do it now. It doesn't take long to become very tired. Just pick something you can look back on and be proud of. Go build houses for the poor or tutor a kid with learning disabilties. Pick something that will actually change someone's life. You'll get your vote and your beer soon enough.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just wait until you're 24 and try to rent a car. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Oh yeah.
And whatever you do, don't use you debit card. Get a credit card for things like securing a hotel room and emergency car rentals.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:If someone does something terrible later in life, and something heroic in their early life, are they still a hero?
Is being a hero a permanent status, or does it take your entire life into perspective?
I'd just add that at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington, the Honor Guard keep a plague of every man who ever qualified to serve in that unit. If a member of the unit has even one criminal infraction, whether he is in or out of uniform, retired or active duty or whatever, the name is stripped from the plaque on the wall.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As for the Jessica Lynch thing earlier, I don't consider her a hero.
Her group made a wrong turn on a road and was captured. Her weapon jammed and she was easily captured, and was subsequently rescued in an overpowering covert strike.
Being captured and held at a hospital, where she was apparently well treated for her injuries, for less than two weeks, after being captured due to the incompetence of her team, I don't think qualifies as heroism, and I think it lowers the value of the word. I think giving her the bronze star was a mistake, and I don't think she deserved it. If she did, then every POW since 1942 who took part in American warfare deserves to be given one, and considering the conditions most American POWs have had to face, they should probably all get silver stars at the very least.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
According to my local paper, which is, in fairness, generally recognized as being complete gibberish, I learned today that young people are being brainwashed into believing in global warming by the vast liberal conspiracy. From what I here, all too frequently, teachers and professors are the new pupetmasters controlling the world and bending it to their twisted and sick desires. I was even unfortunate enough to read a detailed, and more than a little unhinged, explanation of why all professors are mentally unstable.
I am not the only one, doubtless, that finds academia invigorating, but it seems that the world is becoming more anti-academic. This will, naturally, have a great effect on students. Students are inherently corrupted by their relationship with academia, and academia by its relationship with students.
This is not surprising in the least: universities were founded upon Renaissance, or sometimes pre-Renaissance, Humanist ideals, which remain prevalent within their halls and courtyards. But the world grows frighteningly more Anti-Humanist, and universities, far from being seen as dangerously radical, are viewed as dangerously reactionary.
In a world dominated by Nieztchen and Objectivist views, we, the young and the academic, still hold onto a quote from First Edras "Truth beareth away the victory."
We are but a small group on a sled, and the wolves draw nearer. And I am frightened of the encroaching darkness which no light can penetrate. Rage, Rage against the Dying of the Light.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting that in a thread about the young, you quote a poem that refers to the old and/or dying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In a world dominated by Nieztchen and Objectivist views, we, the young and the academic, still hold onto a quote from First Edras "Truth beareth away the victory."
*laugh* This more than anything else betrays the depth of your inexperience, Pel. Seriously, man, get over it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You ever play Vampire: the Masquerade? Seriously, man, you were the target audience.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
quote: From what I here, all too frequently, teachers and professors are the new pupetmasters controlling the world and bending it to their twisted and sick desires.
And here I thought it was the Jewish bankers, the Illuminata, and the Freemasons.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Pel is awfully Byronic, isn't he? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am very fascinated by you, Pelegius, but not for reasons which are very flattering.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Cry angst! And let slip the dogs of woe!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:From what I here, all too frequently, teachers and professors are the new pupetmasters controlling the world and bending it to their twisted and sick desires.
Wait...I thought you didn't like OSC's columns.
[ July 17, 2006, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Posted by: Peligius
quote: I stand alone, a blind seer gifted not with prophesy and a mad philosopher gifted not with thought.
That, may I say, coming from out of nowhere in a post that makes little sense, and which I care little about, is genius at the ready. It's an ironic remark, in that it is so self-effacing, and that your self-efacement is in itself the one smart thing in the post.
This is fantastic. I wonder if you are cribbing the quotation from some literary source and merely implying the "obvious" reference? It sounds so good, it sounds so familiar, I can hardly believe you wrote it.
So what's up with that? Sorry if it was covered already. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You have it in you to do great things, even at 17, if you just apply your will to the task. I taught a girl who was 13 and already owned her own party planning company for elementary school students. At 14, she expanded to hire a secretary who was several years her elder. While her goals were small - to run the company through high school to make money to pay for an Ivy League school should she not receive a scholarship - she could easily turn that entrepreneurial spirit to some other task.
Ironically, finding a way to make enough money for Ivy league, at the age of 14, is precisely the kind of thing that earns you a scholarship! Success really DOES love success. It seems that often all it takes is the initial act, and things can spiral out of all control. Witness Paris Hilton, or the Olsen Twins, you get attention by accident, and suddenly you're the focus of a storm of constant attention, and its attendant attention getters (because we know that neither the Ots, or PH have any marketable skills OTHER THAN marketability. )
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yes, Orincoro, Yes. The Olsen Twins and Paris Hilton are exactly the problem. Well, not them but the culture that surronds them. The future intellectual leading lights of the twenty-first century live in obscuraty while people with no apparent talent are the foci of absurd levels of international attention. Well, to be fair to Europeans, the Beckams have talent in adition to marketability, although the latter is by far more prominent.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Actually, the Olsen twins DID kind of do stuff to get all that attention. I mean, more so than Paris Hilton.
-pH
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Yes, Orincoro, Yes. The Olsen Twins and Paris Hilton are exactly the problem. Well, not them but the culture that surronds them. The future intellectual leading lights of the twenty-first century live in obscuraty while people with no apparent talent are the foci of absurd levels of international attention. Well, to be fair to Europeans, the Beckams have talent in adition to marketability, although the latter is by far more prominent.
Also to be fair, I don't think teenagers are necessarily unwilling victims of the culture you describe.
--j_k
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What is willingness?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
*grin* Do you want the dictionary definiton?
In this case, I simply mean that people do have a choice between making Paris Hilton their idol, versus [insert any well-known philosopher here].
--j_k
Posted by timothytheenchanter (Member # 7041) on :
heroes, i have to say that my personal definition of who i find heroic, is probably a little different than what pel. was trying to say initially.
a hero is someone who chooses what in life is important to them, and is willing to accept great personal sacrifice to accomplish what is important to him.
my aunt is a hero to me. not because i've she has shown some level of bravery, but rather because she decided when she was 12 that she could do a better job raising children than her mother. she has 6 children who are absolutely wonderful. are there sacrifices she has made to achieve her goal of being a better parent than her mother yes. and it is those sacrifices that make her a hero.
i guess a hero is someone who chooses what they believe is right and is willing to accept any personal difficulty to do the right thing.
satyagraha.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The future intellectual leading lights of the twenty-first century live in obscuraty while people with no apparent talent are the foci of absurd levels of international attention.
Wow. This was one of Archimedes' complaints, I believe.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Having grown, in the past brief five years, from a 16-year-old feeling much about the world as you seem to, Pelegius, into a 21-year-old who doesn't feel a whole lot older but has lots more responsibilities, I'd offer this:
I understand your frustration. I was frustrated, too, as many of the older (meaning been at Hatrack longer) posters can attest . And while I feel that some of my frustration was justified - people, after all, keep telling me I seem much older than my 21 years, which would seem to indicate I could've handled more responsibility earlier - I'm now glad, frankly, that I didn't have to.
Young people chafe at the restrictions placed on them. But I've realized that not having to deal with all the responsibilities of life does make it easier to grow just because your mind isn't always preoccupied with paying bills or making sure your toilet works properly or whether or not the insurance company overcharged you. One of the big things for me was being sick - while I was in college, it was an opportunity to skip class and feel relatively guilt free about it (though sometimes it interfered with classes, etc).
In the working world, being sick means shirking your responsibilities, risking pissing off the boss, and punching an *enormous* hole in a precarious entry-level budget. When I got sick a few weeks back, my medicine and doctor's visits costs $120 - and when you're dealing with post-rent budget of only $500 or so, that's huge.
So yes, you don't get all the privileges of being an adult yet. But the one you gripe about - voting - isn't the one that will utlimately make the most difference anyway. And you get to enjoy the privileges of being young and having someone else be responsible for you. So my advice is enjoy it while it lasts.
That said, being grown up is much more fun. Though there are days when I wish I didn't have to do anything and I could just have my mom back to make chicken soup, financial independence is just about the best thing that's ever happened to me. It's definitely a world-at-your-fingertips feeling.
Worth waiting for, worth wanting; but not worth beating yourself up over.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Haha Pel You got one year to go, I got 3 Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Yes, Orincoro, Yes. The Olsen Twins and Paris Hilton are exactly the problem. Well, not them but the culture that surronds them. The future intellectual leading lights of the twenty-first century live in obscuraty while people with no apparent talent are the foci of absurd levels of international attention. Well, to be fair to Europeans, the Beckams have talent in adition to marketability, although the latter is by far more prominent.
But, to play Davidson to my own Scopatz, (I don't know exactly what THAT means), it seems that it might be better to have these brainless, uninvolving, vapid, worthless people as the center of public atttention, because they really don't have the time to do anything but be famous. Paris Hilton actually makes a hefty salary these days from being a TV personality, and from modeling, and from offering general famosity as a commodity.
Some might say it is better to have worthless people spendign their time this way, rather than more productive and intelligent people who are doing the substantive work of society. After all, Stephen Hawking does have to spend SOME of his time studying and working on science even though he is a celebrity.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Adolescence is that period of life when a boy refuses to believe that someday he will be as dumb as his father.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
sorry 'bout that last one. I kind just dropped in a felt a need to make a statement on adolescence. Though they are borrowed words, I do agree with the idea. Then again, in some cases adolescence last far beyond one's 18th birthday.
on Fame: We speak of fame as the reward for genius, whereas in truth genius ... is its own reward, and fame is but a foolish image by which its worth is symbolized -George Santayana-
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)