Went to see "The Incredibles"Follow

That was agood story, hadn't read it in years. Makes me want to go see the movie to look for the parallels you speak of.

Nobby RackTM gbaji for his most concise post ever!!!111eleven11

Well. No one really argues that it's the "same" as wellfare. Even Smash didn't say that (I truncated. My bad. I was trying to please Nobby... Honest!). The term actually used by Smash was "wellfare state". Again, it's not a 100% comparison, but more the ideas behind the scenes that matter.

The idea of a wellfare state is that the state does indeed attempt to correct for inequality in one way or another. It's one thing to provide a safety net for people who fail. It's another thing entirely to try to "even the playing field" for everyone. You have to realize that in a world with limited resources, giving more to one group because they are "disadvantaged" in some way is *exactly* the same as taking away from another group because they are at an advantage in some way. The more socialist your system, the more true that is. In fully socialized systems (fully command economies), there is no real difference between the two.

Um... And if you don't think it's all relative, then think again. How exactly do you think things like poverty values are determined? It's *all* relative. If it wasn't, then why on earth do Liberals make such a big deal about the "gap between rich and poor", and rant about statistics like "5% of the population in the US hold 95% of the wealth"? Believe it. The comparison between "haves" and "have nots" is the core argument for social "equality" movements. It's not just about making sure people don't starve.


Vonnegut is very clearly taking the idea of enforced equality and extending it to the logical conclusion. Right now, it's quite reasonable for Liberals to talk about "leveling the playing field" in terms of wealth. So we take money from someone whos parents are wealthy (he's born with an advantage that he didn't "earn"), and give it to someone who is from a poor family. It's just a logical next step to remove any other advantages someone has in life as well. Why not make strong people wear weights, and pretty people wear ugly masks, and intelligent people get blasted with noise so they can't think? After all, they didn't "earn" those things, and they certainly give them an advantage that ugly/weak/dumb people don't have. We can't make the dumb guy smarter, so the *only* way to make then equal is to make the smart guy dumber, right?

He's being tounge in cheek, but he's got a point. And he's most definately poking fun at Socialistic ideals of equality. There's no way to pretend he isn't (unless you are a hard core liberal that is).

Hey, by the way thanks for coming in right on cue when I mentioned the "slower people" well done.

What vonnegut is sataring is the view of people you that this is what socialism is. Vonnegut's a socialist, you moron.

You can understand that Jonathan Swift wasn't really arguing for eating the children of Ireland can't you?

Oh wait, probably not. I assume you think "A Modest Proposal" is an argument in favor of canibalism.

It doesn't matter if that's what he meant to do. The story is still a great illustration of the argument.


Just at Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a great illustration of the canbilism argument.

Sorry, you're not bright enough to get it.

Carry on not understanding things that are above your head.

Edit: Oh, by the way good job Googling some anyalisis of the story and cutting and pasting it and changing a few words.

Sadly, as ussuall, you fuc[b][/b]ked up the intent of the anylisis again.

Try just linking things that you agree with rather than thinkinng you understand them when it's painfully apparent that you don't. No one's under the ijmpression that you think these things up on your own, you do understnad that, right?

Edited, Mon Dec 6 22:03:53 2004 by Smasharoo

It's a fu'cking disney movie, smash. Dont read too much in too it or anything

Edited, Mon Dec 6 22:16:31 2004 by inasnum

It's a fu'cking disney movie, smash. Dont read too much in too it


Normally, I wouldn't. It is, though, a story about Superheros being forced not to use thier powers and one character or another says about NINE times in the movie "When everyone is super, no one will be" or the villian says "I will sell my inventions to everyone so they can all be super....then NO ONE WILL BE!!" etc. it's a little hard.

It wasn't an offhand refrence or some minor plot simmilarity. The whole point of the movie revolves around it.

Um... No. That's an even worse analogy. A more correct analogy would be Jackson writing a story where as a result of his Rainbow Coalition movement, everyone was forced to paint themselves blue so that no color differences existed in the world, but everyone was miserable with the facade, and the blue paint was toxic and killing people, and then some other people insisted on removing their paint and declaring themselves to be superior because they were no longer blue, attempting to rule the world as a result, but then being killed by some "blue-paint police" or something.

No one in their right mind would think that Jessie Jackson was advocating painting everyone blue. In exactly the same way that Conservatives don't actually think that Vonnegut was advocating making people wear weights to counter physical strength differences. However, some people *might* just come to the conclusion that issues of color difference in society wont be fixed by simply covering them over with paint.


Get it? Vonnegut isn't saying that the world in his story is "ideal". Nor is anyone else (other then really dim bulbs) arguing that's what he meant to say, or that the world he portrays should be taken literally.


Vonnegut is primarily pointing to Harrison as a "villian" because he personally believes that if the "strong" or "advantaged" were given unfettered power, they would choose to rule the world with it (Harrison breaking off his chains and immediately declaring himself Emperor and appointing a court). Vonnetut's reaction to this in the story is to have the HG shoot him dead to "solve" the problem of Harrison.


What I (and Conservatives) are saying is that Vonnegut is *wrong*. He misses a very real point in the world. And what's funny is that he writes it into his story, even if he doesn't realize it. Harrison doesn't proclaim himself Emperor because he's bigger and stronger and smarter then everyone else. He does it because he's all that, while everyone else is restrained by the chains of socialism. He does it as a reaction to the actions of the world around him. He responds to it. He does not create it.

If Harrison lived in a world where everyone was different and allowed to compete based on their own abilities, he'd be a bit better then most, but he'd never develop the delusion of thinking that he was "the best" and therefore he should rule the world as a result. He'd have to compete with a million other people who were near to the same strength, beauty, and intelligence. He would naturally think in terms of sharing power, not just ruling over a kingdom of idiots. The very focus of this world on the concept that anyone with natural advantages would be dangerous and too powerful in some way feeds this. Strength and intelligence are dangerous in the hands of a private citizen, so obviously one who has it but is kept fettered would grow to resent that and might even believe that he *should* be dangerous (and perhaps should be running things). He's given no other choices. He must either comply and live a life where his potential is never realized, or he must rebel and destroy the system. The very authoritarianism required for such a system ensures that violent revolution is the only way out for such a person as Harrison.

Vonnegut very well may not have thought that far into the story when he wrote it. It's clearly not intended to be taken literally. But as an allegory, it's a pretty clear tale about the dangers of painting onself into the socialism corner.


Again. What Vonnegut intended is irrelevant. What it means to those who read it is.




Which explains why I'm able to read a story and form my own opinions about it, while you simply parrot what your teachers taught you. Got it. Lack of imagination is the only quality you are revealing here Smash.

Heh. Who would know better then you what the "correct" interpretation of the story is? Good job Hazel...

What? You read that story and got the idea that there were negatives about equality? How's that possible?


Sigh...

Well, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what you've said about it, it actually sounds more like Dr. Suess's Sneetches

no stars upon thars!