The point of the book isn't so much to argue against war in general as to argue against the idea that war is inevitable.
The idea that war and specific acts of war are unavoidable parts of the human condition is supposed to seem as insane and pathetic as the protagonist's passive view of his life, a view that comes from his beliefs about time travel.
Some of the most heated, seemingly-intractable arguments I've participated in have led me later upon reflection to change my mind. I'm thankful the other party didn't take this viewpoint that arguing is pointless.
Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal. Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through logical means (as opposed to say force or habit). I think it's somewhat akin to the principle of charity.
Where does PayPal state that you must have 501(c)(3) status to accept donations? (I'm concerned because I do something similar to CompuerGuru--accept donations for free software via PayPal and have done so for years).
The fact that people did bad things at one time doesn't imply that what they did was accepted generally or approved by moral standards of the time. For example, many contemporaries opposed the tactics of the Inquisition (mentioned in the article as the advent of waterboarding).
Using the same logic we could characterize 20th-Century people as accepting mass-murder, because it was practiced by numerous nations on a never-before-seen scale.
Read "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace" by Joseph Williams.
It is not one of those books like Strunk and White's that teaches you a set of arbitrary rules.
Rather, the author defines a set of general principles. Then he develops and illustrates those principles with good and bad examples. And talks about the exceptions to those principles.
Much of what separates really good writing from merely correct writing seems ineffable; it sounds the right note. Williams makes many of those seemingly indescribable qualities identifiable, so you can then recognize them in others' writing and learn to build them into your own.
I have a great amount of respect for Richard Stallman, but I don't understand how he reconciles his concerns about a large "surveillance state" (#24) with his insistence that governments take away enough power from companies to make them "squeal." (#17)
Doesn't one work against the other? In other words, a government with enough power to make citizens' organizations squeal by practical necessity risks becoming a "surveillance state."
People walk because their parents absolutely, positively would not give up teaching them to walk.
Citation, please? All three of my kids have taken the initiative themselves to learn to walk, and I've never seen a non-walking older child without a physical disability.
If this is more than just hyperbole on your part, it reflects poorly on your guests.
There are badly-behaved people on television shows around the world; to conclude that such people represent their native countries in any meaningful sense is naive at best.
Trying to get my head around this. What does "keeping one's job" even mean? isn't there still a mutual contract, and both parties can break out of it? So the boss can act on behalf of the company, and you can't. But presumably you can still quit the job on your own decision. Does that make the boss your subordinate?
No, but I suppose it might imply that you could be your own subordinate. Since the boss can fire you, but you can't fire your boss, you have a subordinate relationship.
That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart.
However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.
The idea that war and specific acts of war are unavoidable parts of the human condition is supposed to seem as insane and pathetic as the protagonist's passive view of his life, a view that comes from his beliefs about time travel.