Success?

[sathor]

Hey, it got published in the paper. How about that! The system works! Freedom of speech secured!

Remind me not to read the following week full of ridiculous responses backed up by nothing but hot air and national pride. I never read the paper anymore anyway - so probably not a real concern.

Comments

[freefall127.livejournal.com]

congrats!

[sathor.livejournal.com]

The point is to engender a dialectic. I'm a catalyst, not a debater. I could debate if I felt like it, but when I see ad hominem attacks - which the majority of comments were the two days I did continue to look at it - I don't see a reason in even making any attempt. The article itself was not meant to be further defended.

An author, when s/he writes a book, is not in the position of responding to what their consumers feel about what they have written. It then becomes that person's responsibility to go and spread how they feel about that particular work to others.

I am not keeping an illusion - I am supporting virtue and morality. The opposing side has no justification in these areas, as all of the modern wars against terror originally were not justified by, "we're going to help these people." Not a single one. There is no argument there. Only after invasions, weeks after in most cases, was there any moral argument made, which is merely a sign that our government is not in the business for virtue and morality - otherwise, these points would have been made clear from the very beginning, before the wars were even begun.

Besides, it was an examination of the definition of terrorism and how it applies to US foreign policy. Even if we went in to -help- other nations, the use of force in removing a current government, however hideous it may be, still fits in the definition under coercion of government. The definition does not even make a case about government legitimacy with regards to this.

I might add it's not as if Bush was a legitimate president, either, and there had only been one or two presidents before him that fit the same description. The electoral college, originally developed to circumvent the difficulties in transporting information before communication over long distances became a simple matter, is now merely a mode of making sure that popular votes do not trump government control of circumstance.

As for the illusion that I'm smarter and better than other people, I wouldn't know what you are talking about. I don't know where I stand and I don't care where I stand. I was called a genius in the middle of a fucking college class by a Biology PhD holder, and I did not respond very kindly.

It's not as if I have -anything-, it's not as if I'm a published author, or received a free ride through higher education like so many people I know or hear of. I am on the brink of suicide a great deal of the time, and you think I engender a sense of superiority in my self? Don't make me laugh.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Gee, maybe, I guess that's a reason I received A+ on every single paper I ever wrote?

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Yeah, because if a writer spent all of his time trying to appease every single person, certainly he'd end up being a good writer.

A good writer spends time writing. Not wasting time listening to the drivel other people spit out of their mouths, as if they knew anything at all.

If musicians listened to all of the fucking criticism they received, do you think they'd get any fucking better? No - they don't give a shit what you think, and they keep working at it because -it makes them happy to do so-.

I don't really give a flying fuck what you think, honestly.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

People don't treat me poorly. In fact, generally, most people are pretty kind to me. My problems stem from women not even giving me a chance to get to know them, as if they believe they have some kind of special power that lets them know who someone is without talking to them. That's my problem. Nothing else. I want someone to love, and until then, I'm going to be a depressive.

I was pissed off. Enough said. I could go off on a tangent about why I don't respect modern literature (and likely, part of that comes from the fact it's not pure art like what came from writers of the past - it's always changed and modified by someone else who is not the artist, someone who claims to have some kind of talent with words but can't make a living writing, so they make a living messing with someone elses work) but I won't.

Actually, I did say why they were violations of international law, in one single sentence. So whoever made that comment apparently didn't read closely enough, or alternatively, simply wants to hold irrational beliefs. That's fine by me - I'm not going to argue with irrational people. They can keep doing what they're doing; it's definitely not going to be anything earth shattering.