@ezra-wilkinson
Active 9 years ago- Rank: Loyal Sidekick
- Total Posts: 146
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I got bored reading the first sentence of that system, so I didn’t read the rest.
I offer for you…(for the low price of absolutely no money whatesoever) The Ezra Wilkinson System instead.
Write.
It’s highly simple, but it works wonders.
(Disclaimer: The Ezra Wilkinson System is highly flawed, as it took him two years to write fifty thousand words. Side effect may include hating him, hating anything associated with him, thinking him to be a useless being, and complaining about moose.)
Flaw in the logic? No, not as much.
If there were a flaw however, it would be this: Once again, things come down to the individual. I’ll actually quote Studio C here, (or as best as I can remember the quote): “By that logic you can justify any action simply by placing another person on the enemy side.”
You see, I’m beginning to realize that I’ve been subconsciously prodding myself towards a hobby horse of mine. Namely: Using people as the source for moral absolutes.
The Bible is pretty silent on this subject. The only parameters it sets out that /I/ can think of, are the ones about treating your neighbor as yourself, etc…
Really, I think that’s all I’d be willing to put down absolutely on this issue. Any argument can be made for either side, because we’re using ourselves to define what makes what. This is justifiable here, because I say so, which is different from this. Who decides which is which?
It’s a cop out, I know, but I’m just saying, I personally won’t be hazarding to say if this is something we can be solid about one way or the other.
First they think I’m twenty, then they think I’m fifteen.
Guys, I’m fifty ok.
It makes sense, but it seems to me like we’re redefining the parameters as to why it would be wrong or right. (As a note, I’m very much being devil’s advocate, as I don’t have an opinion on this really.)
When I quickly scan through the first few pages, we’re not assuming that the person is innocent. As in the terrorist example. We know they’re guilty of something. Perhaps not according to the justice systems our courts have set up right now, but according to the moral law, yes they are guilty. Sin is not just an action, it can be lack of action to. Failing to take the necessary action to help someone, is not much better than doing it yourself…as laid out in the Pentatuch.
If you’re going to say we’re torturing someone innocent, then we’re dealing with an entirely different moral issue: The wrongful taking and placing under the law of someone who is innocent. It’d be just as wrong to throw them in jail.
If you go the prisoner of war route, again, it becomes a case by case basis. Perhaps a common soldier may be innocent as you say it. But what if you capture a general who knows information about how you could save innocent people from being killed by his faction? Is torture OK then?
The question, as I see it, lies heavily on the idea of what are you morally allowed to do to someone? And then, in what cases does this change?
I point you to this guy who posted just above me. Watch out for him. He posts weird GIFs.
There’s a difference?
By definition, the use of torture /is/ a punishment. For the withholding of information in this case, or the causing of innocent people to die through negligence.
In principle, the two matters /shouldn’t/ be different. Consider the terrorist example. Contrast it to the examples of ‘punishment’. The terrorist is being punished for the allowing of innocents to die, whereas the others were being punished for active acts they committed.
What I’m saying is, if you’re allowing the one, it makes sense to include the other. You can’t separate the two. Why is hurting another human being justifiable if done in the law under /one/ circumstance, but not under another?
Define the terms.
What qualifies as torture?
D’yknow, whipping is actually a pretty common one. Romans used it. I’m fairly certain we’d all agree on that. And…Jesus did too. Soundly whipped all those in the Temple, disgracing it. Perhaps not in the same manner the Romans did, but the idea behind it was the same.
I’ll need to double check again for the next example, but there was a king in Canaan who, when he captured enemy kings, he would chop off their thumbs and big toes, and have them grovel on the floor of his banquet hall. When he was defeated by Israel, the same thing was done to him. Seems pretty tortuous.
Agag, king of the Amalikiets, in 1 Samuel, he was captured by Saul. Saul was supposed to kill him, but didn’t. Samuel came and “hacked him to pieces”. For some reason, the words “hacked” and “pieces” do not make me think of a very peaceful, and painless death. Just a gut feeling I’ve got.
What I’m saying is, what do you qualify as torture? The simple inflicting of pain? That wouldn’t make much sense. But then where do you draw the line? ‘Course, the Spanish Inquisition /tried/ to make it all right (don’t spill a drop of blood), but that didn’t turn out too well. (I’ve always felt the prisoners actually would have been happier without that rule…)
Really, I don’t have much more to say. It’s a very…vague question. One of those things that can mean many different things, to many different people.
In other words…I doubt there’s a hard and fast rule.
Because my artistic vision is all angsty about that.
And because it’s supposed to be absurd on as many levels as it can be.
What’s one more?
You know you’re a writer when you make writing an excuse for everything.
Why are you talking you yourself? I’m a writer.
Why are you researching how to fight with a dagger? I’m a writer.
Why are you always on the computer? Take a guess…
This is probably the most accurate thing I’ve ever seen, because every writer I know does this…
Oh goody. A question. Quessstion. Precious little question.
I’ve written one novel, and have started work on another. The first was entitled ‘Humanity’s Lie’. Feel free to obsess over just how /utterly/ amazing that is. (And if you think /that’s/ amazing, the actual interior is even the opposite of BETTER!)
My current WIP is of an entirely different mold. It is titled, “The Extraordinary Life, of a Very Ordinary Person” (Please note, you must pronounce it ‘extra-ordinary’ instead of ‘extraordinary’.)
It’s way better. In my own opinion anyway.
It is a highschool curriculum, so it is designed to be informative to those in Grades 11 and 12, but perhaps more oriented toward Grades 9 and 10. I’ve honestly forgotten a lot of how it goes to be of much use to you.
If it’s not your first novel, I think it might be less useful as well…it’s kinda designed for first novel use, though I know many people who do it have done novels before, so who knows?
I think the Forum is possibly the most useful aspect of it. Many people, all willing to talk writerly things, do cool stuff, befriend you, critique your work…I’ve learned more from one hour on there, than from the curriculum itself I believe.
The Summer Workshops are week long workshops that take place in Olathe Kansas, where you go for a week of awesome. There are speakers, critique groups, and loads of amazing people. Good fun. Best week of my life. Very informative as well.
Existential Crisis’s. Remember? I’m romantically in love with them.
