Fasteriskhead

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange]The voice acting in Nodame is simply great, especially nodame herself who has the same seiyuu as [B]Osaka [/B] from [B]Azumanga Daioh [/B'] (has played lots of other roles, too).[/COLOR][/quote]That's actually incorrect. Nodame's VA is Ayako Nagasumi, who was Osaka in the little 4 minute Azumanga promo video but who never played her in the series proper (TV Osaka is the incomparable Yuki Matsuoka, who is also Evangeline in Negima and Arumi in Abenobashi). Ayako's resume is still pretty nice, though (she's Ohno in Genshiken and Fuu in Samurai Champloo). Anyways, enough nitpicking. The show itself is pretty good, one of the best romantic comedies in recent years. And it almost (but not quite) manages to treat classical music right - the old anime curse being to deal with it as if it were on a pedestal. And they've been more adventurous than they needed to - I was grinning like hell when they opted to throw a bit of Bartok in there to break the total domination of the 18th and 19th centuries (plus Gershwin and Rachmaninoff, who do not count). Maybe they'll do some Stravinsky or Lutoslawski later on... nah, unlikely. The height of the series so far has indeed been the Rachmaninoff concerto (although they didn't give Chiaki his cadenza!! boo!!!) - and a part of me can't help but wonder how much that scene owed to episode 12 of Haruhi. Thoughts? None of the above would work if it weren't for the characters. Nodame and Chiaki are an absolutely wonderful match, the undisciplined bubbly prodigy and the perfectionistic introverted grouch. Both are immediately likeable, Nodame perhaps moreso (it takes a bit more time to gain respect for Chiaki's dedication). The supporting cast, though risking wacky for wackiness' sake, is also pretty wonderful. Considering how popular this and the drama have been, I'm guessing it'll definitely be hitting the states pretty soon. Anyone know about release plans yet?

[quote name='Lunox][color=dimgray] You forget that someone [i]can[/i'] like one anime show but not be a fan of anime. For example, I like Ender's Game. But I am in no way a science-fiction fan. [/color][/quote]I actually find this strange. To give an example, since I like Johnny Cash I would consider myself [i]somewhat[/i] of a country fan, even if he and a few others are the only musicians there that I like. I wouldn't say that I'm not a country fan but that I make "exceptions" - I would say that I [i]am[/i] a fan, although not much of one (or, that I have a very narrow range). If we're going to make identification as an anime fan a criteria - which is a good idea, and I wish I'd thought of it first - then I think to avoid astronaut problems we should also retain "has seen at least one anime" as a qualification (equivalent to "has been in space at least once" or "has been adequately trained for spaceflight" for Volume 11's objection).

[quote name='Volume 11']Im not trying to flame or be offensive, but that whole line of thought is illogical.[/quote]1. If someone watches and enjoys some (i.e. > 0) amount of anime, then they are an anime fan. (definition) 2. X is a person who has seen 500+ animes and enjoyed them. (premise) 3. Y is a person who has seen only one anime and enjoyed it. (premise) 4. Therefore X must be an anime fan. (by 1 and 2) 5. Therefore Y must be an anime fan. (by 1 and 3) So far as I can tell, although the definition is contestable, the argument is formally valid. You may be working from a different meaning of "illogical." [quote name='Volume 11']I dont expect people who arent into something Im interested in to go seek out more information on the subject. But when someone claims to love something and does not do some research...its a little annoying no matter how down to Earth you may be about your hobby.[/quote]But we're not talking about whether someone is a [i]good[/i] anime fan who has actually taken the time to watch a lot of shows and do research. A piss-poor fan (who, for example, knows nothing beyond Naruto) is still [i]by definition[/i] a fan, and only on this basis can they be better or worse at it. How annoying they are or whether or not they "have no excuse" to not be curious about things that will educate them has no bearing on this bassline fact. One way out of this is to say that anime fans must, by definition, always seek to know more about their interest. This, too, is contestable and would get a lot of flak, but I think you could offer good reasons for it.

[QUOTE=Dagger]I agree with most of your post, but even if we grant that there's not a core difference in the nature of how people feel about the character, you're brushing off important perceived distinctions. For instance, people who have a crush on a character in a live-action production almost invariably have a crush on the actor as well. If that actor turns out to be reprehensible in some regard, the disillusionment tends to extend to the character as well. (And to think I used to be a Tom Cruise fan...) ... Your pane of glass analogy holds truer for anime than for live-action stuff. People have a much greater sense of being able to get close to human actors, whether through getting autographs or stalking them or just reading magazines.[/QUOTE][SIZE=1]I think you're right. It's definitely an interesting wrinkle in the (very rough) scheme I've tried to sketch out that celebrities become "characters" themselves who are associated with characters they have played, and in some sense have the glass following them wherever they go. (I have formerly seen something like this at convention signings. People always expect to witness "crazy" fans, which I have never seen and which to me is less interesting. What strikes me as freaky is seeing many of the people in line look at the famous signer as if there was something fuzzy and unreal about them, as if they were only half-there - or, grinning like they've just found a peephole into the girls' locker room) By talking about the "pane of glass" in this way, of course, I'm not only talking about television but using that as an illustration for what a relation to an object is like more generally. This is being a bit disingenuous, because the range of these kinds of relations is [i]so huge[/i] that cramming them all into one group is probably straining things. What I mean to suggest is not "how close" the audience feels they can get to a certain character (including actor-characters), but the fact that they [i]are an audience[/i] to begin with. They encounter the other as something alien, an ob-ject that resists them. It's not in spite of this resistance that they experience the other as sexy, as handsome, as kick-*ss, as "moe," or as the one who's going to marry them (or whatever), but [i]because[/i] of it. Resistance here doesn't mean that the object doesn't do what I want. Actually, its resistance gives me [i]pleasure[/i] (i.e. allows me to please myself) in that I can put the resisting thing under my control and do what I want with it. (This initially seems strange, but you can't ever really control anything that isn't resistant. I'm using "control" in a strange sense. Think of a baby stuffing whatever it can into its mouth and you'll get the idea: it wouldn't bother if the things weren't chewable).* Certainly you're going to have stronger associations between live actors and their characters versus VAs, but the more basic issue I'm trying to point out, the "glass barrier," is that I experience the characters (and the actors themselves, insofar as I see them too as a kind of character) first and most fundamentally as objects. Whether I remain a casual fan or I become crazed with desire, both are first made possible on this basis. I'm not saying that this [i]always[/i] happens - surely some people out there can talk to actors normally - but when it does, I think this describes roughly how it goes. [quote name='Dagger']Nice gif, by the by.[/quote]Thanks, although it's not mine. Why aren't there more Genshiken fans around here, anyways? * But the one I love [i]doesn't[/i] resist me, which is completely alarming. He or she is not an object. But if love can't be described in terms of resistance and control, or pleasure, then it becomes hell of difficult to talk about.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I think I'm echoing some of what has already been said, but I'm not at all clear about the terms being used here (I've harped on the love problem before, but it bears repeating). I don't think anyone would deny that for many people there is some kind of... [i]attention[/i] ("attraction" and "desire" seem too loaded) given to animated characters. Madarame [URL=http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7825/genshikenjj5.gif][u]makes a case for this[/u][/URL] in an episode of Genshiken (warning, animated gif contains nsfw language etc.). What's unclear is whether the "attention" here is the same thing as full-on love. The word "crush" is difficult to pin down on this (it's pretty recent, as I recall, I think it first showed up at the turn of the 20th century). For my money, the distinction here isn't between "real" and "fake" people - that is, if someone has a crush on a character in a TV show, I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever whether the show is live action or animated. In both cases what is seen is basically [i]separated[/i] from the viewer, who always sees them through a pane of glass and with all the flash of modern production. This basically breaks down the "real porn versus hentai" question, which for the most part is not a meaningful distinction. The phrase "object of desire" is useful, because the word "object" has a long history which I can use to explain what I'm getting at. Object comes from [i]ob-[/i], "against," plus [i]jacere[/i], "throw." The earlier meaning is retained in the legal use ("I object, your honor!"). An object is something that is [i]thrown against[/i] me, that is, presented to my attention as something from outside of myself that "heads in my direction" (this is how the term is used prior to the 19th century). An object always resists me in a certain sense (I feel it, but only by the surface which pushes me back; I see it, but only on the outside), and always has the sense of being alien. For the same reason, though, there's nothing really [i]at stake[/i] when I deal with objects. I can "enjoy" them and be affected by them, certainly; I can shuffle objects around in any way I want, and (because they're alien) I won't hear any complaints. It probably says a lot about us today that what we usually mean by "love" is a certain relation to an object. Now, that's what I think is being described whenever we talk about being "attracted" to those beings we see behind the glass, or to anyone (or anything) else we experience in this way... but I don't think that's what love is. There's a sense to love that is very different from alien somethings that are just "thrown against" me (even ones that I find really sexy). When I touch the one I love I don't feel a "resistance," not even a pleasurable one. The experience is difficult to describe: I would say that I am [i]accepted[/i] by him or her. I am "allowed in" in a way which never happens with mere objects - though not in a way that me and the one I love are just united into one thing, which would ruin everything. Again, I don't really know how to put it, and "acceptance" is probably the best I can do. When I touch him or her, or when they say "I love you," I don't just feel pleasure or passion: who I am as a person is [i]affirmed[/i], i.e. I find that my existence is [i]meaningful[/i] in a way that I didn't realize before. Anyways, I think this is a useful distinction to make (which might not be initially obvious, because the language is confused). So, to return to the initial question: is it possible for someone to have an anime character as an "object of desire"? Definitely; I think Madarame is right on about this. Is it possible for someone to [i]love[/i] an anime character? Not how I mean it, no; not unless there's a way to touch them and hear their voice speaking to us, which is always prevented by the barrier of glass.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Fyxe][size=1]An over-obsessed otaku on the other hand... >> They get into the life-style. Eat the foods they see in anime they watch(like ramen, rice balls, sushi, etc.), cover every inch of their bedroom walls with posters and wall-scrolls, watch their anime in Japanese... Just, argh. Haha. I know a few people like this, and sorry, but it gets annoying when that's ALL they talk about. Like a friend of mine is HARDCORE into Naruto, and I tend to find myself avoiding him, because whenever he approaches me, it's the same question, "What Naruto character am I most like?" One time I freaked out and said, "I DON'T KNOW! GO TAKE A GODDAMN QUIZ!"[/size][/QUOTE]I think you're eliding enthusiasm with social insensitivity, boorishness, and the inability to take a hint. Surely there are plenty of folks with DVD collections the size of a refrigerator who are perfectly capable of living outside lives. So if I understand you correctly, the real distinction you make is between anime fans who can function socially in anime-unfriendly situations and anime fans who can't (or: "ones I have no trouble hanging out with" and "ones I find irritating"). Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with sushi now and then, the question is whether you can leave it alone or not. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Good grief, watching anime shouldn't be like taking a class. It's suppose to be fun! Not a quest to learn more about the culture or to get into deeper shows.[/quote]As someone who finds taking classes fun, I object. ;) Seriously though, I don't think I would be as interested in anime were I not able to give it consideration on a deeper level once in a while. Once the flash from the first few viewings is gone, is there anything left? Is a series actually showing something, or is it there to thrill me for a few hours and then disappear? Mind you, I'm not saying everyone else should be fans for this reason and I certainly don't have any problem with watching something for sheer pleasure (I'm a Negima fan, so that's pretty much a non-starter), but for me mere diversion gets old after awhile. Think of my cooking comparison from the previous post: some people are perfectly happy with three-step recipes that take ten minutes to prepare, but the wackos are going to want to fix hugely complex feasts that take days. Both presumably satisfy the goals they have set for themselves. Criticism seems beside the point.

Think of two people trying to cook. The first person maybe throws some storebought pasta into a pot of boiling water, then preps some quick pasta sauce with a little garlic, basil, some vegetable oil, and tomato sauce and serves this over the noodles (which are, let's say, a little too soggy). Now think of a professional chef who studied in France, and who over the course of several hours creates a perfect beef bourguignon with several side dishes plus homemade napoleon for dessert. Now suppose someone were to ask the question, "Which of these people is cooking?" The reasonable answer would be, "Both are. One may have a greater range of skills and knowledge, more time and dedication, and a far larger pool of experience to draw from, but fundamentally they're both doing the same thing. They're the same even though they're not [i]equals[/i], in the same way that someone who hammers out 'chopsticks' isn't the equal of a pianist who can play Bartok's second concerto." Watching anime, and being an anime fan, is also like this. It has nothing to do with taste and preference, or with how much stuff one has watched - it basically has to do with [i]knowing one's way around[/i]. (think of someone visiting a city who knows many of the main roads versus a veteran inhabitant who knows each and every alley)

[IMG]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/899/lupinkl9.jpg[/IMG] I don't think I should have to explain this too much. I mean, it's Lupin. This guy was being awesome more than a decade before I was born.

[quote name='Dagger][url=http://www.famitsu.com/anime/news/2007/04/11/681,1176273241,69983,0,0.html][u]New NERV and Seele logos[/u][/url'] (for the movies).[/quote]For anyone curious, I did some research. The phrase "überm Sternenzelt richtet Gott, wie wir gerichtet" (which is superimposed over the new Seele logo) is actually a phrase from Schiller's Ode to Joy, made infamous by Beethoven. Quick ad hoc translation: "above the starry firmament, God judges as we judged." The connection of the apple and serpent imagery in this to Schiller's poem (it's worth reading) is actually pretty obvious, given that the whole thing is saturated in "rebirth" kinds of motifs. On the other hand, I can't figure out what's going on with the NERV logo. The thing behind the leaf looks like an upside down apple with a big black slash run through it, but it's hard to tell. Anyone want to take a guess?

What an impossibly upbeat little slice of ridiculous that op is; I think it's my favorite one since the second Death Note opening (HEY HEY NINGEN SUCKER etc.). Capitalizing this may be, but I don't see how one could complain. Novelty doesn't matter as much as brilliance and sheer revelry, which this thing's got in excess. And do I also detect some borrowings from the High School Girls ed as well as the Hare Hare Yukai dance? (it's a bit sad that that ed has now been more or less forgotten, even though it and Haruhi hit about the same time) So the show's about otaku. And not just otaku, but [i]cute schoolgirl[/i] otaku each with a selection of standard moe features - that is, beings who are essentially [i]fans of themselves[/i]. It's like a snake eating its own tail; Genshiken had the excuse of feigning realism, but here such a facade is completely wiped away. I can only guess at what kind of psychopathologies are pointed out by a series like this. Not having seen the show myself, anything more than speculation is really just blowing steam. That said, I expect the quality to range somewhere from good to spectacular - mainly because it's helmed by Kyoto Animation, who have always done absolutely stellar work on this kind of thing (aren't they also doing the Clannad adaptation sometime later this year?).

[quote name='Dagger][b][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOhI363oJ5I][u]Maria-sama ga Miteru[/u][/url][/b] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlx2TIzGvlw][u]OP 2[/u][/url']) is an elegant, old-fashioned story about all-female school life with loads of yuri undertones.[/quote]Wait a damn minute here. [I]Marimite got licensed[/I]? Has the messiah come as well? Is that the "walking slowly is preferred here" speech I hear over the sound of a bunch of angels playing on seven trumpets? I honestly thought this would never happen, folks, but I've been wrong before. For those who don't know already, Maria-sama ga Miteru is shoujo concentrate (even moreso, I would say, than the epochal Rose of Versailles). It's all long stares, frozen moments, and symbolic flower petals flying every which way, and if you can get past the learning curve it's incredibly compulsive viewing. Never before have you ever cared so much whether a girl's onee-sama likes valentine's day chocolate or not. While I'm happy that it may finally be getting a domestic release, I have to wonder if it will make any kind of an impact at all - it seems entirely alien to current domestic anime sensibilities, even in girls' manga. Well, here's hoping anyways. Just a quick note on some of the others. Higurashi's a lot of fun in a sadistic sort of way, although much smarter and classier than the usual cute-and-shock approach (Elfen Lied, looking at you). If nothing else, I think it makes the case that "moe" (whatever it is) has been completely misunderstood. Solty Rei unfortunately falls apart quite badly at the end, where they try to jam into a half-dozen episodes or so a massive amount of drama and plot exposition that should probably have been spread out more (into the myriad pool episodes &c.). It's quite a bit of fun early on, but I wouldn't recommend sitting all the way through unless you happen to be drawn into the "dramatic" bits far more than I was. I guess I'll stop there...

I'm definitely with Dagger re: the new op and ed. Death Note is really at its best when it is completely off its rocker, and these things are good proof that at least [i]some[/i] people on the staff have finally lost their minds completely. (I especially like the random tempo change at the end of the op, and also the fact that it [spoiler]pretty much attempts to compress the rest of the series into a minute or so[/spoiler]) On the other hand, they're completely overusing Low of Solipsism!! (the music that plays during the [spoiler]infamous potachi scene and elsewhere[/spoiler]; you can also hear it in my synthesis of it and the [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGD6bby9oUw][u]Van Damme dance[/u][/URL]) Guys, it's going to totally lose its hokey power at this point! I mean, come on, dropping it during [spoiler]a [i]phone call[/i][/spoiler]?? I could totally get behind its use in the previous episode, but this time it just isn't unjustifiably silly enough and the whole scene lacks an adequate number of dramatic panning shots.

[quote name='Dagger']A Rebuild trailer has made its way online... but it doesn't have any actual footage, just background music of an orchestra tuning and a bit of semi-Engrish ("new character, new machine"). Oh well. :animeswea[/quote]The trailer is [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-MMaAwIs9s][U]here[/U][/URL], for those of you who haven't seen it yet. And then, of course, there's [url=http://www.blinkysrus.com/?p=91][U]WEVANGELIWON[/U][/url], which I'm surprised hasn't become a joke meme yet. In the trailer it does indeed look like they've switched out the オ for a ヲ, but isn't the first エ still there? Well, I guess it doesn't matter. WEVANGELIWON FOREVER

Kudos to the artists for a fine job, and congrats to the winn- [QUOTE=Shy][center][img]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w190/niftyfifty_2007/fhead_banner.jpg[/img] [b]Fasteriskhead[/b] "Because he can send an otherwise staid and predictable thread spiralling off into the hinterlands of philosophy and existentialism, and because he actually says what he thinks in Anime Lounge threads. But mostly for the Pumpkin Scissors drinking game."[/center] [right][i]- Raiyuu[/i][/right][/QUOTE]W-what? When did this happen? Does this mean that I'm obligated to take time away from classes and reading and actually start posting again? Also: how did you people know that I look kind of like Gendo?

[QUOTE=Shinje][font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Paul is clearly teaching that homosexuality is a brokenness that God wants us desperately to get free from via a relationship with him. (agape, of course!)[/color][/size] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]So it makes no sense to proclaim a Christian faith and divulge in something the Bible describes as nothing short of a shameful brokenness.[/color][/size][/font][/font][/QUOTE][SIZE=1]I think you misread the passage. Paul is not at all saying that these "shameful desires" - and he does consider them shameful, as would any right-thinking first-century Jew - are in and of themselves bad. Later in the same letter: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." Rather, he assumes that these practices happen because those he criticizes are [i]already sinful[/i], i.e. have already broken with God. That is, what matters for Paul is [i]not the "shameful desires" themselves[/i], which he takes as symptoms at most. It seems to me to grossly misunderstand the thrust of Romans, a letter almost entirely devoted to reinterpreting the law in the light of Christ, to fall back into "such and such is unclean, therefore don't do it." For Pauline Christianity, it isn't the act, but [i]where it comes from[/i]. Moreover, I notice that you do not note that immediately after the section you quote, at 2.1, there appears the phrase: "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." (See also his discussion of law and sin later on) This isn't at all to say that everyone gets to do whatever they want. Paul would never, ever approve someone's saying that "God should just accept me for who I am"; despite the Christian's death to the law, he is nevertheless kept very strictly in line by other means. In the Paul of the Romans, the final question for us is always: are we acting out of [i]love[/i], or from something else? The latter always and only means Sin (big S) - a Sin that is in fact [i]magnified[/i] by the law, never overcome. One should never take what Paul is saying as a touchy-feely, "we're all special" kind of "acceptance." The epistles are not intended as soporifics. But while he is certainly willing to find many things (including homosexality) distasteful, this is never a final criterion. Consider what he says on diet and holy days (Romans 14:1-10):[/SIZE] [quote][SIZE=1]Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarrelling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgement on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgement on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honour of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honour of the Lord and give thanks to God. We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord?s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why do you pass judgement on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgement seat of God.[/SIZE][/quote][SIZE=1]One could easily extend this to the question of homosexuality. However, again, acting out of love does [i]not[/i] mean "do whatever you want." Paul goes on (Romans 4:13-15):[/SIZE] [quote][SIZE=1]Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.[/SIZE][/quote][SIZE=1]Perhaps Christians, all Christians, including those on both sides, should take careful note of this passage. The usual question of the homosexuality and gay marriage debate is whether or not God "allows" for such things. It's worth wondering whether this has pushed aside a much more, so to speak, Christian question: do my actions injure those around me?; have I let my own "observance" destroy "peace and mutual edification"?; am I acting out of love, or otherwise? "Of course I'm acting out of love! I'm making sure that those sinners don't keep doing the wrong things!" "It's THOSE people who need to act out of love, not me! I have the right to live however I want, and they should accept that!" - whatever else these answers are, I don't think they're Christian, at least not in any sense Paul would have approved.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Albert Flasher][COLOR=Sienna']"If you're going to be long winded, at least be entertaining." This one is my own. I think that there are a few people on this particular board who could take my advice... [/COLOR][/quote]This is why I'll never make a career in entertainment. In a (probably hopeless) attempt to make a case for unentertaining longwindedness, here's a few selections by Georg Hegel from a little essay called "Who Thinks Abstractly?" It's not brief, it's probably boring, but it does make a point. [quote][SIZE=1]Think? Abstractly? ? [I]Sauve qui peut[/I]! Let those who can save themselves! Even now I can hear a traitor, bought by the enemy, exclaim these words, denouncing this essay because it will plainly deal with metaphysics. For [I]metaphysics[/I] is a word, no less than [I]abstract[/I], and almost [I]thinking[/I] as well, from which everybody more or less runs away as from a man who has caught the plague.... That everybody present should know what thinking is and what is abstract is presupposed in good society, and we certainly are in good society. The question is merely [I]who[/I] thinks abstractly.... Who thinks abstractly? The uneducated, not the educated. Good society does not think abstractly because it is too easy... I have only to adduce examples for my proposition: everybody will grant that they confirm it. A murderer is led to the place of execution. For the common populace he is nothing but a murderer. Ladies perhaps remark that he is a strong, handsome, interesting man. The populace finds this remark terrible: What? A murderer handsome? How can one think so wickedly and call a murderer handsome; no doubt, you yourselves are something not much better! This is the corruption of morals that is prevalent in the upper classes, a priest may add, knowing the bottom of things and human hearts. One who knows men traces the development of the criminal's mind: he finds in his history, in his education, a bad family relationship between his father and mother, some tremendous harshness after this human being had done some minor wrong, so he became embittered against the social order ? a first reaction to this that in effect expelled him and henceforth did not make it possible for him to preserve himself except through crime. ? There may be people who will say when they hear such things: he wants to excuse this murderer!... This is abstract thinking: to see nothing in the murderer except the abstract fact that he is a murderer, and to annul all other human essence in him with this simple quality.... It is quite different in refined, sentimental circles ? in Leipzig. There they strewed and bound flowers on the wheel and on the criminal who was tied to it. ? But this again is the opposite abstraction.... In quite a different manner I once heard a common old woman who worked in a hospital kill the abstraction of the murderer and bring him to life for honor. The severed head had been placed on the scaffold, and the sun was shining.... This woman saw that the murderer's head was struck by the sunshine and thus was still worthy of it.[/size][/quote]

I'm not necessarily a fan of state executions, but I can't see how anyone with a thought in their head could see this as even being one that was done well. This thread, I think, should [i]not[/i] be (or at least, is less helpful as) an abstract discussion about whether capital punishment is acceptable. It's whether this [i]one[/i] execution at all lived up to whatever it was supposed to be, and what effects it will have. I think the answers are, in order: not in the least, and extremely bad in the long run. Look at the facts. Saddam was being held under the Geneva Conventions, and prior to the execution was in fact [i]at that moment[/i] in trial for committing genocide against the Kurds in the '80s and early '90s. That trial, as well as many others addressing additional crimes, will now never be completed - at best the Kurds and the rest of the Iraqis might see "justice" done to Saddam's underlings and yes-men. He was convicted and executed for the murder of 143 Shiites in Dujail, and that's it - he will never be brought to account for the countless thousands of other deaths that he caused, and while Iraqis may take a brief amount of pleasure in seeing him finally dead, that's no substitute for the process of justice and resolution that has now been aborted. Make no mistake: the reason Saddam's execution happened now is a political one. There are good ways of getting rid of a deposed head of state - ways that will allow him to be quickly forgotten - and then there are bad ones. What happened here, as almost everyone seems to agree, is that al-Maliki and the Iraqi appeals court thought it was more important to make the extremists in the Shiite majority (and particularly the followers of Muqtada Sadr) happy than to continue the process of exposing and trying the crimes of a butcher of thousands. The execution itself (I take it everyone's already seen the video) should have been the somber and dignified end to the life of a humiliated dictator - instead it was a spectacle for a mob, where practically the only somber one was the guy being killed. The authorities should have made sure that there was no chance of Saddam's becoming a martyr - now he's practically [i]guaranteed[/i] to be one, and his grave in Tikrit will almost certainly become a pilgrimage site for angry Sunnis. In any case, whatever the resolution of the trial (and it really should have been trialS, plural) of Saddam Hussein was (be it execution or something else), what was most crucial was that it would close the coffin on a quarter-century of abusive authoritarian rule and make a clean start for Iraq as a whole. Instead, the original intent of having justice done has been thrown away in favor of the petty sectarian politics which the Iraqi government had once tried to do away with. Saddam was killed in such a way that the "Mahdi Army" is further legitimated by the Shiite-dominated government, the Kurds have the trial for crimes of genocide committed against them suddenly cut off, and the insurgent Shiites get a martyr to admire and further justification for civil war. What should have been a point of unification is now going to fragment things more; I certainly hope the Iraqi government (and with them the US military, which never voiced a real word of protest) is proud of themselves.

Assuming I had all my affairs in order, I would first try to write thank-you letters to each of my teachers. By "teachers" I don't just mean "someone who led a class I was in," but also parents, friends, favorite authors, and in general all those who let me learn who I was (something still in progress). After I was done with writing thanks, I think I would try to say something about death. I've always admiref the old Japanese tradition of the death poem, although for many reasons I don't understand it and can only appreciate the thinking it springs from on a very superficial level (if I could see what a cherry tree was - and I don't - I think I would have the basic gist of Japanese poetry). I'm not a poet, and I never will be. Nevertheless it seems important to me that on my last day I should write something about death, entirely dispensing (hopefully) with the superficial and sentimental in favor of merely saying whatever needs to be said in an honest (in the widest sense) and simple way. I don't know what this is yet, this something that needs saying; hopefully by the last day I will have learned. If I had any time left, I think I would simply read, listen attentively to a few pieces of music, and think. Oddly, I don't think I would want to spend it with others unless they would be willing to help me with my last tasks - I think they would try too much to tell me goodbye and end up tying themselves into knots in the process. Everyone else will have plenty of time to say goodbye - I, on the other hand, only have this one day for it. I honestly think it would require every bit of concentration I have to die in an attentive, thoughtful, meaningful way, and I think I could only do that in quiet and solitude.

Cute, certainly - kudos to whatever concept writer finally realized that vampires are often far less appealing as angsty romantics or kill-crazy lunatics than they are as cute girls with cat ears. Unfortunately the series itself is incredibly uneven, and especially towards the end it gets bogged down in the absolute worst budget-protection measures that I've ever seen in an anime. The show just feels too stretched, not just economically but creatively: there are entire episodes where it seems like no one in charge knew what to do. On the other hand, when the show's on, it's [i]very[/i] on... because really, if you can take a cute imouto in a frilly dress and cat ears with little fangs jutting out of her mouth and do it right, then the rest of the show doesn't really need much else.

[SIZE=1]Allamorph: thank you for the wonderful reply! You've exposed a number of hasty mistakes on my part, and in many ways put my points better than I did. [quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]I am not entirely sure how to approach that statement [langauge describes facts, not "just" things]; I suppose my hesitation is due to wondering what exactly you mean here by [I]things[/I], and how you (or Wittgenstein) would define [I]ideas[/I'].[/FONT][/quote]I think this is just poor wording on my part. With the "just" there I'm not saying that a scientific, subject-object kind of language describes things [i]and also[/i] facts - "just" means "merely," in the sense that language deals with things (or non-things) ONLY through their presence in states of affairs. Otherwise, they are nonsensical. Things are dependent on their place in facts, not the other way around. Wittgenstein: "Only facts can express a sense, a set of names cannot." A round-up of mere "things" means nothing. This is already implied in the fact that objects, properly understood, have no meaning outside of the capacity for a subject to understand them - any "object" that falls outside of this relation is not an object at all. As for ideas, ever since Descartes they have been understood simply as the representation of an exterior fact by a thinking being within its consciousness, or more radically as concepts and their synthesis of sensible intuitions (Kant) - there have been a few really weird exceptions to this (Spinoza and Berkeley come to mind), but for the most part this understanding has held steady. In this case, the only appreciable difference between ideas and other facts is that ideas can only be facts about one particular kind of object, i.e. the subject - that is, facts about what the subject "experiences." Of course, this is totally different from what Plato meant when he first used the word "idea" in a philosophical sense, but no one much worries about this... [quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]The one item you failed to address is the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. This question only concerns facts in that it is probing their purpose. E.g.: [I]"Dad, why is the sky blue?" "It involves light refraction. Light enters our atmosphere and passes through little water droplets in the air, and the angle we see the light at tints the color blue." "Yes, I know that, but why blue?"[/I] Obviously the father in this scenario could go on about wavelengths and other such rot, but he'd still be missing the point: what was the purpose for that particular color? And all preexisting items, and even questions about them, are subject to the probing of the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. I would like your take on the [I]"Why?"[/I'] aspect.[/FONT][/quote]And here you perfectly pick out the basic problem with understanding everything in terms of subjectivity and objectivity, and why I think it is so important to consider these kinds of issues. What, first of all, does this kind of an understanding have to say about something like "blue," or even just the "blueness of the sky"? Answer: "blue" is a sign that has meanings within various propositions that describe facts. You miss, I think, the obvious rejoinder to your question: "When the child asks why the sky is blue, she's actually asking about the [I]meaning[/I] of the blue sky [I]for her[/I] - or, even more widely, for 'mankind' as a whole." This seems to make perfect sense - provided that we completely miss the point that [I]this is not a statement about "blue"[/I], only a statement about a subject or group of subjects that [I]sees "blue" in a particular way[/I]. "Blue" here only has meaning when it is part of a state of affairs. This is not only true of this situation, but of all situations in general: all subject-object understandings are [I]incapable[/I] of grasping things except in terms of their relations to other things in states of affairs. Wittgenstein again: "Propositions can only say [I]how[/I] things are, not [I]what[/I] they are." Almost no one has given much thought to the glaring fact that subject-object understanding, which (connected to scientific research) has produced the most precise, far-ranging, and technologically powerful culture in history, is completely at a loss when it comes to the simple act of trying to understand what "blueness" is. Somehow we can put people on the moon and produce atomic fusion, but a blue sky is beyond us. The only thing to be done is to throw one's hands up in frusteration and dismiss this kind of talk as the deviant and confused ramblings of subjects who are misusing language. You may notice that I haven't directly answered your question about what "why?" means. I plead limitation of time on this one. But it's worth noting that the question "why is there anything at all rather than nothing?" - which I would consider "why?" at its most extreme - is taken by the "philosopher" Martin Heidegger (a guy to whom my more rambling posts are completely indebted to) as the most basic "leading" question of metaphysics (that is, philosophy). This doesn't mean that all philosophy tries to [I]answer[/I] this question, rather that genuine philosophy is [I]grounded[/I] in this question and works within the space it creates. I'm writing very vaguely, I know. But at the very least I should try to point out that a question like "why is the sky blue" immediately leads to issues of [I]methodology[/I] - that is, of [I]how[/I] the "thereness" of the blue sky can be clarified in its essence and if this is really possible. [quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]Then there is the last part of that statement: [I]To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution."[/I] That was not what was stated. What was intended was "there is a question with no [B]one[/B] answer," or in your words, " 'there is no [B]one[/B'] fact capable of resolution."[/FONT][/quote]I didn't read the question this way, but in any case I don't think this requires great change to my characterization of subject-object understandings. The totality of all possible facts that could resolve a question is itself a kind of fact. [quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']I realize that you used the HUP in a purely demonstrative sense, but I would like to make some additional statements in its regard. Heisenberg said that, of two conjugate variables ("a" and "b"), the more accurate our measurement of "a" becomes, the more uncertain our measurement of "b" becomes. However, another (rather irritating, from my perspective) property of measurement in science is that there can be no completely accurate measurements. Since there then is no possibility for a definite "a", there is no im-possibility about "b", and thus no contradiction.[/FONT][/quote]Thank you for catching me on this! I try not to let my illustrations lead me into these kinds of stupid mistakes, but it still sometimes happens. Yes indeed, the relationship between two measurements a and b in the uncertainty principle is [I]inverse[/I], and [I]not[/I] mutually exclusive as I described it. I would put the second part of your point (starting from the "however") in more mathematical terms by saying that if I'm measuring a with a great deal of certainty, then the possibility of reaching certainty with b infinitely approaches zero asymtotically but never quite reaches there (in the same way that I never measure a "exactly"). Despite my error I think the point I make still stands, although I have to get to it differently. A really strict kind of "natural science" (using the word as Wittgenstein does) describes facts, that is, states of affairs. A fact can either be true or false, "the case" or "not the case." Insofar as the measurements of a and b under the HUP are "uncertain" not merely in the sense that some observing subject "doesn't know what they are," but are [I]basically[/I] uncertain by definition, natural science doesn't know how to deal with them because it doesn't deal in halfways and maybes. This leads to the (initially counterintuitive) result that the [I]statistical possibilities[/I] are, strictly speaking, the things that really are or are not the case before the moment of measurement, and not the particles themselves. I leave anything more specific to people who are actually competent in physics, as I've already made enough of a fool of myself in the area. [quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']Your post was very mentally provocative, and I thank you for it.[/FONT][/quote]The same to you! (although I would change the compliment to simply read: provocative, period)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interrupting my vacation briefly to make a long and rather rambly post... To try to address this question, it might be useful to quote the last few passages from the [i]Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus[/i] of the (relatively) famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they can be used to illustrate the issue well. They read: [quote][SIZE=1]6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it. 6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said. 6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer. ... 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.[/SIZE][/quote]Trying to answer questions about the basic possibilities of questions and answers has to start with an understanding of [i]language[/i] that is fairly well-established. Wittgenstein understands language in a basically scientific sense, which is today probably the most common interpretation. Understood like this, language is a way of communicating facts about the world. A statement or proposition takes one or more of these facts and converts them into a set of symbols, which (if the language is working right) can be understood in such a way that understanding the statement amounts to the same thing as understanding the fact. For example, when I yell to someone that "there's a spider in my room!" they will, assuming they know what I'm talking about, then understand the basic fact (that there's a spider in my room) in the same way that I do. Language can vary in terms of how exact it is ("there's a spider in my room" versus "at 4:34 pm today I saw a tarantula on the floor in the northwestern corner of the master bedroom in the townhouse at 123 Pine St."), but the purpose of all language is still basically to point to facts in the world. Going by such an interpretation, a question like "Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue [sic] answer?" has to be answered "no," assuming it's even a real question (remember, questions can only be asked about facts in the world - asking a question about the nature of questions is a no-no). Also, keep in mind that language here is meant to describe [i]facts[/i], not just [i]things[/i] - if statements could only be made about things, then saying something like "I have no children" is impossible because there wouldn't be any children to talk about (but it's perfectly fine if the lack of my children is just taken as "how things are"). Any question about x requires that x is either the case or not the case. Any statement ("x is the case") has to be capable of being shown to be either true or false, and anything else said is simply misuse of language. If I ask an artist whether he has ever drawn a circle with exactly four sides, I am not asking a real question: a circle with four sides could never be drawn nor (in a certain sense) could it ever [i]not[/i] be drawn, so the question is nonsensical. The same is true if we're ever talking about facts that, by some necessity, could never be put into words. These facts may [i]exist[/i], but if they cannot be put into words then by definition they have no place in scientific language. My saying that "there is a fact x, and x can never be said" is flat contradiction. Recent science, particularly physics, has had to wrestle with these problems. Most infamous is the "uncertainty principle" of Heisenberg which (without going into it deeply) states that getting a complete measurement of one property of a particle (let's call this a) makes it impossible to know another property (b). It's important to note here that this isn't simply saying that we can know a, and b is something that we "might" be known but which currently escapes this. That wouldn't have given anyone any headaches at all. Rather, the simple fact of knowing a makes b [i]unknowable by its basic nature[/i], hence very much like the four-sided circle. This seems to be totally opposed to what we said above, because if I know a, then I have to say that "b cannot be said" - which is not a scientifically cogent statement. Much of the difficulty of quantum physics comes as a result of trying to find strict ways of describing these particles within a scientific outlook that understands language as communicating facts. Most quantum physics now simply refuses to speak of the existence or nonexistence of particles prior to their being measured; only at the point where a or b are [i]known[/i] can they be said to "be" at all. Instead, one speaks of the objective existence of [i]waveforms[/i] of possibilities, all of which "collapse" at the moment of measurement when a or b become known. In any case what's really interesting is that here, in the most strict science of all, the basic fact of human knowledge has become a question. Human measurement isn't just "observation," it actually coincides with [i]objective changes[/i] in the facts. So, what is the [i]nature[/i] of this being that is able to know facts and to use language? This sounds like a question about "subjectivity." It's no accident that, coinciding with the rise of a way of understanding language as describing facts, there was also a parallel [i]artistic[/i] tradition. That tradition understood all art, and that included language-art, as the [i]expression[/i] of an artist. "Personal taste" was quickly understood as the polar opposite of scientific facts, something which has nothing to do with objective "reality" but which only expresses a fact about the observing subject (Hume was, as far as I know, the first to think this way). This understanding, usually called "romanticism," has no problem with saying things that are scientifically nonsensical, as long as they mean something "personally." And in fact, "questions with no real absolute answers" become very important here: "what is the meaning of life?"; "is there a God?"; "what is the soul of man?" are good examples. What's important here is the sensitivity, the expression, and the personal life of a subject - which is in direct contrast to a scientific expression which tries to "iron out" subjectivity as much as possible. For the past three centuries at least, these two interpretations of language (as scientific expression or as personal expression) have gone almost entirely unchallenged. On the surface, then, it seems like a total upheaval of this state of affairs to have physics asking about human nature. This is actually to misunderstand where both understandings of language come from. Scientific expression and personal expression are different, yes, but they are grounded in the same thing, as both derive from the much-quoted motto of the philosopher Rene Descartes: [i]cogito ergo sum[/i], "I think therefore I am." Descartes, seeking for an unshakeable rock upon which he could build all natural science, found it in the certainty of his own thinking. Any "subjectivity" or "objectivity" in the modern sense has to take for granted that [i]the first object is the subject[/i]. I think, I am a subject = I am, my existence is an objective fact. Whenever there's a "subjective" personal expression (say, admiration of a piece of art) it is also taken as a fact about a unique "object" (the admirer); whenever there's an "objective" scientific fact (say, measurement of an electron's spin), it secures itself on the basis of its observability by a "subject." Modern physics hasn't become more "subjective," it's just gone back to the origin of both subject and object. Whatever else the question "Is there such a thing as a question with no real absolute answer?" does, it assumes a understanding of [i]language[/i] and of the relationship of human beings to the world that is based on the subject-object pair. A question is something posed by a subject capable of representing facts in his consciousness (this is even true in solipsism) regarding objectively existent states of affairs (which include not only world-facts, but also self-facts). An answer brings some relevant fact to the subject's consciousness to resolve the question. To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution." But the unanswered question itself, as well as its unanswerability, are themselves facts - not world-facts but [i]self-facts[/i] about the subject, i.e. the fact that someone asks this question and that it has a certain "subjective effect" on him. This completes anything that could possibly be said on the topic. Regardless of whatever else is taken by this rather meandering post, I will simply say 1) that whether there are questions without answers is an issue secondary to how we understand the sense of "asking questions" and "seeking answers" to begin with, and 2) that the subjective-objective conception is a [i]historical[/i] one. By no means are the relations of question and answer - and that also means between language, human beings, knowledge, and the world - understood [i]only[/i] in this way. Homer thought differently; the writer of Job thought differently; Lao Tzu thought differently. Dismissing this by saying that they just have different "worldviews" obviously skips the question by assuming from the start that everything is subjective interpretation of objective facts, "worldview" being just one particular fact which is the product of human consciousness. What is needed, for my money, isn't [i]answers[/i] to deep and impressive-sounding questions (including questions about unanswerable questions), but to examine whether we are absolutely clear on how and why we are asking those and other questions. The same Wittgenstein as above also said, "A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations." I don't necessarily agree with how he understands "elucidation," but I share the sentiment.[/SIZE]

First, keep in mind that this assignment sounds like it's less about trying to determine whether cloning would be a good thing or not, and more about whether you can pull off the time-honored debate task of taking a point (no matter whether it's right or wrong for the time being) and hammering the hell out of it. The WORST thing you can do with such an assignment is waffle. Imagine you're a lawyer (defense or prosecution) at a trial where "cloning" is the defendent. You are neither supposed to win at all costs, nor offer a totally comprehensive and fair report on the case. You are supposed to make the strongest arguments possible for your side, and that's all. Possible pro points: medical purposes, such as harvesting new limbs and organs for injured patients; creating children for would-be parents who aren't fertile; (if gene alteration is also included) removal of undesirable genetic defects. Possible con points: ethical dilemmas, especially involving questions of what a "human being" is; medical uses may involve unacceptable destruction of human life; issues regarding the impact on overpopulation; increasing homogenization of the population, putting it at risk for outbreaks of diseases that target particular kinds of people. There's probably lots more, but that's all that comes to mind right now. Anyways, grab some points like these, blow them up with examples and descriptions, and try to make the best case you can for whatever side you choose. EDIT: well, Aaryanna beat me to most of this. Ah, well.

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']Dealing with Phaedrus' hubris has left me sour to all other would-be pseudo philosophers, skilled or not.[/color][/quote]There's a reason I'm staying well away from the inanimate objects thread. Philosophy is what it is only when it stays attentive to the few basic and utterly crucial questions that have been there since the beginning: what is a being?; how are beings initially [I]given[/I] to me, that is, how does a thinking thing (the greek [I]noein[/I], which recently had an anime named after it, can translate as both thinking and perception) basically perceive beings in an immediate and unreflective way?; how is the thinking thing (e.g. human being) unique?; what is truth, as distinct from falsity?; what is the good, and how is it important to thinking?; maybe a couple of others that don't come to mind right now. In any case, declaring everything "subjective" is no longer doing philosophical work. It has ceased to approach these issues in a fundamental way. It is to use a philosophical determination [I]already arrived at[/I] to hammer every question into rubble, without at all having clarified the basic elements of [i]what a "subject" is, how we are to take the "chaos" that is the exterior world, and what this "mind" is that supposedly makes up all reality[/i]. Any "philosophy" that doesn't pay attention to the basic preliminary clarity of its terms and axioms - and that [I]always[/I] means attending to the few age-old questions above - is anything but philosophical. Oh, the topic itself? Uhh, I'm not really good at very much. I know a lot of Star Wars trivia, if that counts.

Man, I guess I can sympathize a little with folks not liking Romeo and Juliet. It's not the best-written of Shakespeare's plays (though also not the worst), but dammit it's still Shakespeare, and the guy's work is bottomless. For me the key fact about the play - and something that more modern "tragic romances" have never picked up - is the conflict between the families. I read it this way mainly because of the how the play is [I]structured[/I], which I don't think a "tragic" interpretation can really support. The title characters are empty and uninteresting, just a pair of hot-blooded and rather stupid kids who fall in love. The play isn't even a [I]tragedy[/I] in the sense of Macbeth or Hamlet, because the leads don't have "flaws" (or even personality) other than being young, dumb, and full of (err) passion. With tragedy the fate of the title character is there from the start, in the [I]basic features[/I] of the character himself. In R&J, however, the ending happens ONLY by mere chance (basically because Romeo doesn't get a letter in time). If you take a look at the structure, R&J is less a tragedy and more like a comedy that somehow went horribly wrong. Where most S comedies end with a big party, reconciliation, and usually a wedding or two, R&J kicks things off with a double suicide. But the strange thing is that the reconciliation itself is [I]still there[/I]: the last scene of the play is Capulet and Montague finally making peace with each other, and the "glooming peace" here is brought about directly [I]because[/I] of the love between the families' two kids. This is something that later readings and rip-offs of R&J have never understood: they just make R&J about love "in spite of" a bad situation - the feud - and thus a love that ends up having to escape from everything else, ultimately doing so in death (Wagner's Tristan and Isolde is a good example). But this misses the point that [I]the feud itself[/I] is really what the play is about. Shakespeare asks: how is it possible for two factions absolutely mired in hatred for one another to come to peace? R&J answers: by the blind, stupid, even unfortunate love that stems from the innocence of youth. [I]That[/I], to me, is extremely interesting, even if the lead characters themselves are complete bores. Anyways, that's my spiel in defense of the play. Fair enough if you don't like the usual "tragic love" way of reading it - I agree! But there are other possibilities. As for the anime, I think I'll need to reserve judgment until I actually see it. It [I]looks[/I] pretty and I like the design work (although I'm not sure about the wisdom of throwing flying horses in). But it's really a wait-and-see thing for me. Gonzo as a studio is notoriously uneven, and there are spotty areas even in their best stuff (such as Space Count of Monte Cristo, hereafter Space Count). The basic story here gives them a lot of material to play around with, although maybe not quite as much as Space Count. I'm hoping for really good results, but honestly I'm just not sure yet. (also: thanks to Dagger for identifying the music, it was bugging me that I couldn't place it)

[SIZE=1]How interesting. A very serious question about love, the confusion of personal relationships, and what obligations a person owes to their significant other has now been sidetracked into a debate over whether the one who asked this question in interested in lesbian sex (and possibly documenting it, so that the boards as a whole can "verb the noun"). Never mind whether lostvoice leans that way; the question of "intimacy" has entirely dropped off. This is an invaluable rhetorical lesson for me: I now know that if I ever want to avoid addressing a question, all I have to do is pile a mass of lesbians on top and soon people will stop caring. As long as we're bringing up Freud, or at least something like him (forgive me if I seriously doubt whether any of the major participants in this thread have read more than 20 pages of Herr Doctor), we could also ask a different kind of question. We could ask, for instance, why it is that in asking questions about what love is, how we know that we're in love, how we should do justice to another person, and why we find it so difficult to be "intimate" with others, that we find these questions basically unappealing (or worse, "emo"). We could ask why it is that we find a discussion about lesbian sexuality, with no concern whatsoever as to actual [i]love[/i], so much more interesting. We could ask why we'd rather not approach these emotionally messy issues, and would instead hop straight over to the much funnier and more sexually appealing topic of girls kissing/licking one another (which requires absolutely no investment of meaning on our part). Or to sum up, we could put some thought into why the basic [i]phenomenon[/i] of love (whether repressed or not, whether of one gender or another) is to be shoved aside in favor of scoring, getting girls, secret urges towards gayness, and hot hot pixxx of chicks making out. Do I think this kind of consideration is going to happen? No, not at all, this is the internet for God's sake. Love is never a serious and enduring question here; all interaction happens through a pane of glass.[/SIZE]