Sort of like yourself, Wonkette, DailyK, MyDD et al?

Pot, meet kettle.

Regards,
Peter H.

the greatest love you can have for another is to value them more than you value the most valuable thing you have to give, which is, and can only be, yourself.

As a literal statement, taken by itself, that is obviously true.

I know. That’s why I said it. Thats what the passage in John is talking about, and why I referred to it.

No one except you has ever claimed theres a necessity for tragic sacrifice. And the idea that if we only loved our troops more, none of them would die is precisely the kind of nonsensical claptrap Im talking about. Its war! People die in war, from both sides- - no matter how much you love them. And quite frankly, I’m done with this conversation. I abhor this kind of meaningless pseudointellectual gobbledygook.

The greater act of love, Will, would have been for more people to have behaved morally and responsibly and creatively all along, in such a way that the evil one was dealt with firmly from the beginning and was, in the end, the only one who had to die for anyone.

and you said

The world isnt like that, never has been.

Then what the heck are our troops doing in Iraq, and what are we doing, trying to thank them and fund them?

It is a matter of scale. Since people have free will, including the freedom to act like irresponsible ostriches as well as heroes, the glass will never be entirely empty, or entirely full. But here’s your real-life example. Because our troops, police, CIA, etc. are fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, the evil ones die - instead of us having to, and instead of our defenders having to die in larger numbers. The better we all support them, the easier their job is. The easier their job is, the more evil ones do the dying and not them (or us). That’s good.

So no, I don’t want our defenders to sacrifice themselves. I won’t be impressed by their “love” if they do. I want them to make the other guys, the evil ones, do the sacrificing. I will be impressed by their smarts if they do that, and by OUR love, if we have enough clarity to support them in doing that.

I find it a little odd, Will, that you would call that (which is going on in the world as we speak) a “fantasy” and not Harry Potter.

its nonsensical to suggest that the love of one person for another is contingent upon the actions of some third party or parties…

Which I didn’t. It sounds like you’re not hearing me.

we can only talk about value in terms of what we would sacrifice…

That, precisely, makes no sense. A value is something you act to gain and/or keep. You wouldn’t act to gain and/or keep it, if the action weren’t a profit for you - a net *gain* of, well, things (or people or qualities) you value.

Sacrifice is the opposite. Sacrifice is when you throw it away - taking a loss. An intelligent person sacrifices their life when, and only when, (1) they have made a commitment so profound that they wouldn’t want to live without it, and (2) tragically - whether through other people’s moral and practical failures, or their own, or terrible bad luck, or whatever - they have been boxed in. It’s bad when it happens, or at least very sad; not something to romanticize.

the greatest love you can have for another is to value them more than you value the most valuable thing you have to give, which is, and can only be, yourself.

As a literal statement, taken by itself, that is obviously true. But I perceive you here as wanting to conflate it with the supposed necessity and glory of tragic sacrifice. That, I don’t agree with.

I’ll give you this: If everybody behaved perfectly all the time, writers wouldn’t have anything to write about. JKR wouldn’t have had books to write.

While it would be nice if the world could be so ordered that evil never crossed your path, or sacrifice were never necessary…

But that isn’t what I was talking about

Sure sounds like it to me…

The greater act of love, Will, would have been for more people to have behaved morally and responsibly and creatively all along

Which of course is fantasy. The world isnt like that, never has been. And frankly, its nonsensical to suggest that the love of one person for another is contingent upon the actions of some third party or parties. First and foremost, love requires living in the real world.

Love is an individual act. It doesnt take a village to love a child, it only takes one person. You and only you are accountable for how much you love someone else, no matter what anyone else does or has done or doesn’t do. And what St. John is referring to in that passage is the value you place on that loved one. And we can only talk about value in terms of what we would sacrifice (as a capitalist, surely you recognize that.)

Is your loved one more valuable to you than a roll of nickels? Is your loved one more valuable to you than your home? And what St. John correctly points out is that you dont have anything more valuable than yourself. No matter how much money or how many possessions you have, nothing you own is worth more than your self. And therefore the greatest love you can have for another is to value them more than you value the most valuable thing you have to give, which is, and can only be, yourself.

While it would be nice if the world could be so ordered that evil never crossed your path, or sacrifice were never necessary…

But that isn’t what I was talking about, so you may be in danger of arguing with a straw man. In fact, I disagree. If the world were ordered that way, there would be no free will.

…there is still no greater sacrifice–giving up everything– one can make for another than to die for them.

Absolutely true. There is no greater sacrifice one can make. (Note the emphasis.)

Hence no greater act of love.

And that is not true. You’re conflating (that is, structurally equating) sacrifice and love. That equation is wrong. Except, of course, in Christian philosophy which is what I am disagreeing with (or objecting to) here.

The greater act of love, Will, would have been for more people to have behaved morally and responsibly and creatively all along, in such a way that the evil one was dealt with firmly from the beginning and was, in the end, the only one who had to die for anyone.

Sacrifice may, sadly, become necessary and even be admirable. But it is not - in fact, it is never - the greatest love.

I think even Patton would defer to St. John.

I wouldn’t be 100% sure of that, Will.

Also, as I mentioned, I was citing “authority” tongue-in-cheek. My philosophy is that people should think for themselves, or decide arguments on their merits. St. John espoused a philosophy, at least in this instance we’re discussing, that is at best “easily mis-applied”, let’s say.

fascist conservatives

is an oxymoron. Conservatism wants the government to have LESS control over everything, and less influence on people’s lives…it is liberalism that wants government to have more and more power and control over every facet of life that is responsible for fascism, communism, naziism, etc…

The extreme of liberalism is tyranny, the extreme of conservatism is anarchy.

As a not-so-tongue-in-cheek conservative “authority” for this, I cite Patton.

I should have cited my source as well. That passage comes from the Bible, John 15:13, and I think even Patton would defer to St. John.

Now perhaps there “shouldnt” be evil in the world, but alas there is. And many people believe, as do I, (and many faiths teach) that there always will be, until the very end times. So while I see where youre coming from, I couldnt disagree with you more. While it would be nice if the world could be so ordered that evil never crossed your path, or sacrifice were never necessary, that just isnt realistic. And even if it could, there is still no greater sacrifice–giving up everything– one can make for another than to die for them. Hence no greater act of love. As Lily dies for Harry, as Snape dies for Lily, as Dumbledore dies for Harry and Draco, and as Harry is willing to sacrifice himself (not to mention Jesus who sacrificed himself for the world.)

It is so like fascist conservatives to attack things like a person’s name cause they can’t make a real, thoughtful agruement against their positions.

You mean like Bushitler? Please, Kevin. You wouldn’t know a fascist if one bit you on the ass and forced you into a internment camp. You don’t know what the hell fascist means. The other mindless fcuktards on DU use it all the time so it sounds cool, right?

Get back to us when you get a dictionary. Until then, you may cram it where the sun don’t shine.

And while we’re at it, what in christ’s name is an agruement???

You may go now, piss ant.

Specifically, Brown’s strong desire not to call Islamic terrorism by name echoes the insistence of the head of the Wizard government, the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge — to refer to their mortal enemy, Voldemort, as “he who must not be named.”

Read Deathly Hallows over the weekend - loved it.

Similarly, her attitude was clearly lifted from Shrillary Clinton.

Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.

Talk radio in HP? Interesting. How long is the book? I saw it at Publix the other day next to their HP cupcakes. Looked kinda thick. If I had nothing to do, I think I could knock that out in a day or so. However, I’ve never read a whole book of any length in one sitting.

I’m sure the books are better than the movies. They usually are. Other than the story, my favorite part of the movies are the FX. It would be cool to have moving paintings and newspapers with moving photos, but my favorite would have to be the mess hall ceiling and the various holiday decorations.

On another note, TGCpartner (Hispanic, former Catholic) was always worried that the whole wizards and witches deal was too evil. I reminded him that the Pope said HP was ok. We had a few discussions based on what little I knew. I was surprised when I returned from the wine aisle at Publix to see him reading the last page or so. He also hates reading. Says he got his fill for life at university.