BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA

cthia wrote:Since I was thrust at the wheel again, I'd like to kick this thing into overdrive. But first, to tidy up a few loose ends.

SNIP SNIP SNIP


But, it holds true in the presence of treason, collusion, agression and threats of imploding the Solarian League with a plan of economic warfare and soliciting a majaor League member to assist.

I tried to point out to everyone so fastened to the "letter of the law" about there not being a Declaration of War by the Solarians, that it became a moot point, when the Manticorans declared war! That fact, and the material we've covered thus far can be found in a beginners handbook. I'd like to move on to more advanced notions. We've been in this class for a little over a year, but I was trying not to leave anyone behind. I'll probably ruffle a lot of feathers when I pontificate about exactly what point the Manties technically declared war, regardless of the date of any official notification. Lacoon certainly was an economic WAR waged against the League. But, it's a moot point, because the Harrington Plan, itself, is war!

I probably should hide out in a series of caves like Saddam Hussein before coming out again?

You havent been arguing about the text at all, Cthia. This issue is something personal to you, in your personal life. The interstellar relationship between Beowulf and anyone else is NOT SEXUAL. Get your mind out of your pants, pleeease!

If after reading RFC's post (which you did, yesterday) you ought to have figured out that Beowulf has no obligation to support the Mandarins or the SLN (which have been carrying out those EE violations in the verge for a looooong time. They have spent hundreds of years trying to fix the SL from within and been blocked constantly in the Assembly by the abusers.

Eventually, you get rid of the abusive and overbearing spouse, to put it in your own words.
In another thread, the author has pointed out that the ROGUE REGIME whose mindset you are so insistant on channeling was, by their OWN INTERSTELLAR CONVENANTS,TREATIES, and PROTOCALS in violation of the Deneb Accords, the Beowulf Treaty mentioned in Saltash, their own Shingaine Wormhole Convention--and their own Constitution, in mobilizing for war without the consent of the Assembly. Nor do they, or have they ever, told the people of their own State (the League citizens, you know?) the truth about anything at all.

By the time Manticore activated Lacöon, Solarians had a) been involved in terrorism in Talbot via Monica; b)fired on and destroyed 3 naval vessels with all hands, without a warning; c) refused to cooperate with local authorities in investigating the incident, instead precipitating an engagement (New Tuscany Incident II); and c)permitted a Naval invasion of Spindle.

All of that before they implemented the defensive plan to kill, not millions of spacers, or the entire SLN, but the revenue stream that keeps your CRIMINAL COTERIE of outright sociopaths in power.

And, even after the loss of Crandall's fleet, they couldn't go to the Assembly and get a declaration of war. Not even when they were already lying to the public about all of the above events.

I know you like to argue, but your analogies in this bother me a lot. You are essentially arguing that all of our Founding Fathers should be lined up on the wall and shot as traitors; that spousal rape is acceptable; that no one should ever resist a regime that takes their cue from the Fascist or Soviet propaganda of the war years. . . .

Frankly, you ought to be ashamed of being able to think like they do. Stop gloating, or you will put your arm out of joint patting yourself on the back.

Rob


made a correction regarding Spindle. rtt

cthia wrote:I tried to point out to everyone so fastened to the "letter of the law" about there not being a Declaration of War by the Solarians, that it became a moot point, when the Manticorans declared war! That fact, and the material we've covered thus far can be found in a beginners handbook. I'd like to move on to more advanced notions. We've been in this class for a little over a year, but I was trying not to leave anyone behind. I'll probably ruffle a lot of feathers when I pontificate about exactly what point the Manties technically declared war, regardless of the date of any official notification. Lacoon certainly was an economic WAR waged against the League. But, it's a moot point, because the Harrington Plan, itself, is war!

I probably should hide out in a series of caves like Saddam Hussein before coming out again?

Yes, we can stipulate that there have been many acts of was between Manticore and the Solarian League: fomenting terrorism, attacking Monica, Byng's actions, Crandall's actions and even Laccoon and the Harrington plan (I am fuzzy on when Manticore's actual declaration of war falls into this timeline).

But a declaration of war by the Solarian's in return is not moot; because Article 5 of the Constitution specifically denies the federal government authority to dictate to system governments in time of peace. The trigger for that authority is voting the declaration, because that is the system governments ceding authority to the federal government. This is the point of Article 5, it is to ensure that there is a democratic authorization of the war making powers. That is why there are declarations of war in general, to indicate that the constituents are united behind the military. Often there are other authorizations that flow from it; in Manticore, it allowed for special taxation (see Field of Dishonor).

You are still trying to skirt around the following statements in the passage:

I hope no one will be offended if I say, speaking as the Republic's Chief attorney, how deeply relieved I am to be out of what we might charitably call a legally ambiguous situation.
...
I doubt anyone in Old Chicago’s interested in our interpretation, but it is a matter of public record. And as a nitpicking attorney, I’m glad to get out of the moral and legal middleground.”
...
She probably had a point there, Benton-Ramirez y Chou acknowledged. There was a certain legal and moral…murkiness to the Republic of Beowulf’s actions over the last seven months or so—starting with the decision to warn both Landing and Nouveau Paris about Filareta’s impending attack—regardless of how justified its position might be.

The words "legally ambiguous", "moral and legal middleground" and "legal and moral…murkiness" would not be used (provided RFC is being precise), if the participants really believed they had done anything majorly wrong.
Which makes the use of the word "traitor" ironic, referring to the attitude of the Mandarins, rather than an actual admission of guilt.

You have fastened on the use of the word "traitor" by Devorah Ophir-Giacconi; but ignore that she was the one to also say "legally ambiguous" and "moral and legal middleground"; then you accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too, when you are the one that refused to reconcile the combination. I do reconcile it by saying "traitor' is being used ironically in the entire discussion.

Bob, I like the post. I got a huge kick, and a good laugh, out of it. In a good way. It's a really nice post. When I get the time to do it justice, I'll get back to you.

But first things first. Get my head out of my pants? I'm not the one who reduces an analogy to marriage to something sexual. Unless you're one of those cavemen who think the sanctity of marriage is all bump and grind. The bumps of marriage and the grindstone that is life, that is. See, my mind isn't the one in the gutter. LOL

Besides, I knew long ago the relationship between the League and its founder isn't sexual. She stopped putting out for the hairy ape, a looooong time ago, because her husband became interested mainly in his money, and he was being played like a harp by an invisible woman from the rafters. LOL

For the record. I do not like arguing, in and of itself. I do enjoy debating. Arguing is simply a mechanism of debating. It is annoying when arguing becomes a symptom of a natural reflex action and not a symptom of thinking. The formal discussion is what I seek. Yes, I was a member of the debate team. I simply adore book discussions, where most people, sadly, seem to miss the grist, and the gist.

Wiki wrote:Debate is a process that involves formal discussion on a particular topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing viewpoints. Debate occurs in public meetings, academic institutions, and legislative assemblies.It is a formal type of discussion, often with a moderator and an audience, in addition to the debate participants.

Logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are elements in debating, where one side often prevails over the other party by presenting a superior "context" or framework of the issue. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will do it.

You claim I fail to address the text at all, but I do. I consider all of the text taken together (see context above) within the entire framework. Some may call it, reading between the lines. What lies between the lines that has always been missed in the forum, without fail, since joining, is human nature. I always find myself pointing out the ever present human element. The human element has invited its entire family and friends into this discussion, yet ye all continue to miss it.

Beowulf was right to lose her warm cozy feelings for her "common law" husband. To be honest, it is natural to fall out of love. It's difficult and oftentimes suicidal to continue to love one who has become unlovable. But, oftentimes, a spouse attempts to leave the relationship too late or incorrectly, like Beowulf. But she was wrong for trying to poison him with treachery. Attempted murder (of her entire founding) and sometimes possibly treason, is a crime of passion. For example, the decision not to sit on that Dispatch Boat was symptomatic of the crime of passion of a scorned woman.

I find it rather interesting that a reader can become so enamored with a character that they become oblivious to right and wrong, out of such sheer passion for the character. And blind loyalty. We humans can become self-destructive and make an ass out of ourselves when our hearts become involved. I'm not immune to it either, being human. It is the driving force behind spousal privilege, where a spouse does not have to testify against his better half and end up on the sofa that the wife has now fashioned into a bed of knives. We can become as loyal to our characters. I'm not immune to that either, but I have an uncanny ability to become the character. Not because a couple of English teachers said so. But because they realized it is true. Books, along with life, has always had the power to put me in touch with my emotional side. Emotion has a way of draining the pool of excrement, leaving nothing but truth. Man has a problem understanding her, oftentimes. I never have. I wonder if it is symptomatic of having five sisters. Nah! But I digress.

As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say "I'll be Bach," to compose a tune.

cthia wrote:..snip..
But first things first. Get my head out of my pants? I'm not the one who reduces an analogy to marriage to something sexual. Unless you're one of those cavemen who think the sanctity of marriage is all bump and grind. The bumps of marriage and the grindstone that is life, that is. See, my mind isn't the one in the gutter. LOL
..snip..

A couple of posts back:

cthia wrote:"BE WULF! WTF! W E GIRL! YOU'RE GONNA GIT YER PANTIES RIPPED CLEAN OFF!"

. . .

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:..snip..
But first things first. Get my head out of my pants? I'm not the one who reduces an analogy to marriage to something sexual. Unless you're one of those cavemen who think the sanctity of marriage is all bump and grind. The bumps of marriage and the grindstone that is life, that is. See, my mind isn't the one in the gutter. LOL
..snip..

A couple of posts back:

cthia wrote:"BE WULF! WTF! W E GIRL! YOU'RE GONNA GIT YER PANTIES RIPPED CLEAN OFF!"

. . .

Why dost thou thus . . .

Perhaps if you had an even better example you can draw a straight line between M E T A P H R S. We've been in this class for a year.

Freshman studies is over for the most of us.

cthia wrote:..snip..
Perhaps if you had an even better example you can draw a straight line between M E T A P H R S. We've been in this class for a year.
Freshman studies is over for the most of us.

Just pointing out that you words could come directly from the male chauvinist playbook.

It's been an ongoing theme for a long time now, and if you think a metaphor of ripping a women panties off is appropriate in ANY setting you have poor taste and are a male chauvinist to the bone. You may think you aren't but the language you regularly use tells us a different story.

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:..snip..
Perhaps if you had an even better example you can draw a straight line between M E T A P H R S. We've been in this class for a year.
Freshman studies is over for the most of us.

Just pointing out that you words could come directly from the male chauvinist playbook.

It's been an ongoing theme for a long time now, and if you think a metaphor of ripping a women panties off is appropriate in ANY setting you have poor taste and are a male chauvinist to the bone. You may think you aren't but the language you regularly use tells us a different story.

Poppycock. You posted it as a response to my reply to Bob that my analogy of marriage isn't sexual. You even rolled your eyes. Man up and grow some chest hairs. (metaphor)

This is an example of an argument induced by a reflex action, and not by thinking. You were caught with your pants down (metaphor). And now you're trying to deny your sophomoric response. I'll leave it at that so your embarrassment won't be total.

For the record . . .

I do not THINK I'm not. I'm CERTAIN of it.

Someone with five outspoken sisters is a male chauvinist? Someone who sheds tears at the drop of a hat is a male chauvinist? You use words you have no clue about. I've been called many things by my friends, chauvinist will never be one of them.

Poor misguided American prudish puritans. It's a metaphor, plain and simple. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you thought. Plain and simple.

Why dost thou thus,
Do you must?

Perhaps my discussions are too cerebral.

cthia wrote:Bob, I like the post. I got a huge kick, and a good laugh, out of it. In a good way. It's a really nice post. When I get the time to do it justice, I'll get back to you.

Eh, mostly you enjoy yanking our chain(s). One of the best books I read as an undergrad was called "Elements of Argument."

It was a sort of handbook for public speakers, including spokespeople, and debaters. Of course, it has probably been out of print since forever. . .

Ha, still in print after all, in the twelth edition.

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:

cthia wrote:Bob, I like the post. I got a huge kick, and a good laugh, out of it. In a good way. It's a really nice post. When I get the time to do it justice, I'll get back to you.

Eh, mostly you enjoy yanking our chain(s). One of the best books I read as an undergrad was called "Elements of Argument."

It was a sort of handbook for public speakers, including spokespeople, and debaters. Of course, it has probably been out of print since forever. . .

Ha, still in print after all, in the twelth edition.

Rob

I don't like jerking chains, but sometimes the dog simply gets too close to danger. Life isn't all black and white. Problems are manifested when people mix the wrong colors, and produce the wrong hue of reality, than it appears in the real world. Crimes of passion arise from completely divergent views from a common denominator. When just one view is totally bereft of the human element and human nature, conditions are ripe for a killing. History is replete with examples: The Holocaust and Slavery in America are two clear points from which to draw a straight line.

But I digress. Perhaps someone will school me as to how the author's (post 1), (post 2) changes this discussion. But be careful. Be verrrry verrrry careful.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:If after reading RFC's post (which you did, yesterday) . . . SNIP

This particular conflict is available in two flavors, whose relevance most people miss . . .

1. Beef with Sol and Manticore
   
3. Spicy Beef with Sol and Beowulf

Discontinued: Beef with Beowulf and Sol. Lack of interest.



Consider this: Which is more important to whom? And why.
This is a good example of where two diverging views can spark a crime of passion.