Timewaster's Guide Archive

Exactly, that doesn't mean I don't like her as a character, though.  She was given a fascinating personality. 

Yukomo, what do you mean that's not how she acts?  Does she ever explain to anyone the reasons for her counsel?  Does she share her ideas and goals with other Aes Sedai (or even Rand) as equals do?  Most certainly not.  If you want her help, you must do it her way, and you must trust her. 

I partially agree about the Latra Posae thing.  She is no more to blame than Lews Therin.  All Aes Sedai knew that the greatest achievements the One Power created were the result of both halves being used.  Lews Therin chose to act without the female Aes Sedai, and the results were catastrophic.  I am not excusing the lack of action, I am saying that both sides were equally at fault.

I completely agree, Jade.  I was respondin to the implication that knowing right and wrong is innate, and therefore removes any excuse for bad behaviour, even for infants and children.  You either have to learn it, or you already know it.

To add to Knight's point, Mtlhddoc2, if it is proven that even with a strong moral upbringing (most often due to the religious beliefs of the parents), still does not prevent some people from being immoral, imagine what happens when people are not given a moral structure?  Are you saying that because something isn't 100% effective that it should be disregarded completely? 

I think the bigger problem would be that the controller of the A'dam would have to give some freedom to Semi because she doesn't know the weaves.  They are so complex that it would be difficult for someone to notice if she was secretly damaging him elsewhere while healing the hand.  Semi would surely try, even if it meant her death.  She is one super-sadistic nutjob.  They may still get something out of her, though.  After all, she may despise being hurt as much as she loves hurting others.  If anyone can crack her, it's Cadsuane.

And that is the point I am trying to make, Knight.  I may not have stated it as well as I should have, but I was trying to convey selflessness vs selfishness.  People look for reasons to justify their actions rather than question whether the potential consequences of their actions will impact others, or even themselves, negatively.  
Sin is just a fancy word for mistake (it literally means "missing the mark").  Since we are imperfect, it is easy to make mistakes.  To be honest, I think it is absolutely necessary to make mistakes in order to  grow spiritually and emotionally.  

I haven't read too many studies on child psychology (although I don't doubt I could find studies and essays that reach the opposite conclusions of those Knight mentioned), I only know from my own experiences, and when my 18 month old smacks my 30 month old because he took her bath toy, she does not know it is wrong.  All she understands is that he did something she didn't like, and reacted instinctively.  He does the same to her.  If they really understood what was right or wrong my wife and I wouldn't need to say "NO" 8 thousand times a day.  They are learning what they should and shouldn't do, but it is definitely a process.  Also, why is negative consequence required in order to support this teaching?  The Bible says "spare the rod and spoil the child".  Why is that?  Only pain and/or humiliation truly drives home the point?  The fear of experiencing that pain again the only true deterrent?  If the understanding of right and wrong is innate, it seems to lie dormant for most of our childhood.

Cadsuane is quite interesting.  She only knows how to do things via the "I am Aes Sedai and that should be enough for you" attitude towards people.  She is also the most successful AS in history when it comes to finding male channelers (even though she is Green Ajah), but also in maxing out their survival rates after gentling.   Great catch on the Ter'angreal, Joe.  Do you also like how she arranges her sewing box so she can see behind her?  Everyone is so shocked when she knows they are there without turning around.  Such a simple but effective trick.

I think you can have a discussion about right and wrong without talking about religion, although you will most likely find that most religious tenets are very sound and based on past experience and instinctual knowledge.  Humans are superior to other animals simply because we are aware and able to have these conversations.  Non-sentient Animals do not question their existence, nor are they aware of their mortality.  If another species obtained sentience, they would become equals to us.  That doesn't mean we should wantonly destroy all other life, because we are still tied to it, and therefore must control ourselves for self preservation.  Our sentience allows us to live outside of nature, to a degree, so we must have a greater self control over our natural instincts (as ironic as that is).   This is what right and wrong breaks down to at it's core.  Whether you believe in a higher power, struggle for the future of the planet and humanity, or just out to save your own A$$, the same rules apply.   Can we look back at history and see the reasons for the moral tenets written in religious and governmental laws? 

Wow, this has certainly strayed from a summary of a first time reader, hasn't it.  Please allow me to land a blow on the memory stealing as a price.  Mat remembers dying.  A lot.  He mentions it several times, actually.  If they are able to record memories of those who entered, even after they left, then that makes sense, but I highly doubt they actually lose the memories.  Matt could be Aemon, or an important general from Manetheren.  We may never know exactly.  The concept of the soul is extremely complex in this series, even to the point where it has a genetic component to it.

I saved my criticisms on Republicans as part of my next post, which I stated.  I have always had issues with the Right's stances on birth control, sex education, and some censorship beliefs.  I do not consider myself a Republican.  In fact, I would lean much more toward the libertarian overall, although I do believe that individual rights must be weighed against the rights of the many.  I may bend these arguments toward party philosophies because those philosophies are what make the government run.  I am just nitpicking particular stances, but they lend themselves to an overall thought process that I am trying to convey.  I believe the Liberal and Conservative monnikers are outdated.  Democrats aren't really liberal at all, actually.  They have kept the same overall beliefs for 50+ years now, and Conservatives have been open to some change, so both sides are pretty much neutral now.  A strong pro 2nd amendment view is considered conservative, but a strong Pro 1st amendment (speech and press anyway) view is considered liberal.  Are they both not civil liberties?  Here's a huge hippocrisy that drives me nuts about many conservatives: If you are to preach so strongly about God's will, and how heaven is such a wonderful place, why do you then go out of your way to keep someone alive who, if nature was truly allowed to take it's course, would be dead?  I am not talking about euthanasia here, I am talking about just turning the machine off.


A single college study does not a true theory make.  Let's go with this for a second, however.  Did this study include the plethora of physical and educational advantages given to an inmate that are not available on the outside?  Could it be that the attempts to reform inmates actually make prison life safer and better than life in regular society?  There is no true punishment for most crimes, anymore.  Do you honestly think the majority of people change who they are because someone is nice to them?  We are waiting too long to do anything, and we are allowing reasons for behavior to become excuses for behavior.  Criminals have more rights than victims.  Law-abiding citizens must suffer because we do not want to risk "singling out" anyone.   The good of the few are outweighing the good of the many.  The weak and disenfranchised should be protected, but if you believe everyone's rights must be protected, then the majority's rights must be included in that protection.
   

Why do the donations have to be non-tax deductible, by the way?  A donation is a donation.  If the money comes directly from me instead of going through the Government first, why should the Gov still get that money as well?  That's why charities are tax deductible.  A non-profit, privately funded organization is much more effective than any government run program.  Either way, though, I bet even non-tax deductible donations fall in favor of red states.

One other thing; a Poly-party system is not as rosey as you make it out to be, just ask Germany, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.  Having no clear majority makes it difficult to get anything done, and the more different viewpoints you have, the more likely that will happen.