 |
| |
|
|
nostromo
|
 |
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
I'm reading the book right now. Here's Well's explanation:
spoiler(highlight to read):
Strange as it may seem to a human being, all the complex apparatus of digestion, which makes up the bulk of our bodies, did not exist in the Martians. They were heads--merely heads. Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures, and injected it into their own veins. I have myself seen this being done, as I shall mention in its place. But, squeamish as I may seem, I cannot bring myself to describe what I could not endure even to continue watching. Let it suffice to say, blood obtained from a still living animal, in most cases from a human being, was run directly by means of a little pipette into the recipient canal. . . .
The bare idea of this is no doubt horribly repulsive to us, but at the same time I think that we should remember how repulsive our carnivorous habits would seem to an intelligent rabbit.
The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood. The digestive processes and their reaction upon the nervous system sap our strength and colour our minds. Men go happy or miserable as they have healthy or unhealthy livers, or sound gastric glands. But the Martians were lifted above all these organic fluctuations of mood and emotion.
Their undeniable preference for men as their source of nourishment is partly explained by the nature of the remains of the victims they had brought with them as provisions from Mars. These creatures, to judge from the shrivelled remains that have fallen into human hands, were bipeds with flimsy, silicious skeletons (almost like those of the silicious sponges) and feeble musculature, standing about six feet high and having round, erect heads, and large eyes in flinty sockets. Two or three of these seem to have been brought in each cylinder, and all were killed before earth was reached. It was just as well for them, for the mere attempt to stand upright upon our planet would have broken every bone in their bodies.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
MrFun :: No . I'm assuming a more free environment. |
That is a faulty assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf OzzyKP :: There are all kinds of reasons for that. Slavery obscured the issue; puritan ideals indirectly told the women to get in the kitchen; the country was pretty young as well. Now that we're a modern, secular culture, and kids - the most modern and secular among us - apparently don't want to vote, it's safe to assume they never will. |
Slavery was still an issue by 1900? No.
The culture and "ideals" of our nation now are more hostile to youth speaking their mind than "puritan ideals" were to women. As you hint at, this causes internalization of this dominant cultural attitude, and yes that does affect people in the disenfranchised class. Be they women or youth.
So you are saying the less religious people are the more likely they are to vote?  Plus the fact that the current up and coming youth are more religious than their Baby Boomer parents, your point is wrong.
You'd think that after being on the wrong side of every civil rights movement for the last 100 years, and taking their lumps because of it, Republicans would wise up and try to champion the next big movement in its infancy. But if you are any sign it seems conservatives will venomously fight youth rights just like they do/did gay rights, women's rights, and black civil rights. Its a shame, and a tactical error I might add.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
|
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
Maybe its the off-topic political discussion started by Wiglaf that saved the thread. Now its a nudge sepperate from the other WotW thread. *shrug*
Thanks for the kind words nostromo. I hadn't mentioned this before, but one of our Board members, and one of our most active members for the last 4 years also uses the name nostromo. I keep thinking he wandered in here when I see your name. |
Its not me. Is he (assuming he's a he) a Conrad aficionado? Nostromo is the title of one of Conrad's novels.
Last edited by nostromo on 06-07-2005 at 22:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
You'd think that after being on the wrong side of every civil rights movement for the last 100 years, and taking their lumps because of it, Republicans would wise up and try to champion the next big movement in its infancy. But if you are any sign it seems conservatives will venomously fight youth rights just like they do/did gay rights, women's rights, and black civil rights. Its a shame, and a tactical error I might add. |
Ozzy, you know I love you, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one. Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Filibustered by Democrats until finally passed by Republicans and signed by Eisenhower. Same year, Gov. Faubus (D) of Arkansas tried to defy integration orders, and he sent Federal troops into Little Rock to force the doors of the high schools open.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed through the Senate by Sen. Dirksen (R), and opposed almost entirely by Democrats again, including the famous seventeen hour filibuster by Sen. Byrd (D). 22 of the 28 votes in the Senate against it were from Democrats.
Even when you move to 1968, the Republicans are still voting monolithically on the right side. 29 for the housing Civil Rights Act, 3 against.
Even if you're talking about Conservative vs Liberal, as opposed to Republican vs Democrat, you're still wrong. There is no way that Eisenhower can be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, anything but conservative.
The truth is that the problem was always Conservative Democrats, and I think it's largely a myth that they ever even switched to the GOP. Helms was always a Republican, and Thurmond became a Republican in '68, but those the only notable exceptions to the rule. Conservatives like Nixon only began picking up real ground in the South after '72, and by that time, the civil rights movement was already more or less victorious.
Basically, you're completely wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar
Ozzy, you know I love you, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one. Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Filibustered by Democrats until finally passed by Republicans and signed by Eisenhower. Same year, Gov. Faubus (D) of Arkansas tried to defy integration orders, and he sent Federal troops into Little Rock to force the doors of the high schools open.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed through the Senate by Sen. Dirksen (R), and opposed almost entirely by Democrats again, including the famous seventeen hour filibuster by Sen. Byrd (D). 22 of the 28 votes in the Senate against it were from Democrats. |
Actually, it was pushed throught by President Johnson (D), a bill introduced by another Democratic President. Given that democrats had a vast mayority in the senate at the time and that most Southern senators were democrats, well, your statement is a huge "stating the obvious" moment.
quote:
Even if you're talking about Conservative vs Liberal, as opposed to Republican vs Democrat, you're still wrong. There is no way that Eisenhower can be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, anything but conservative.
|
Actually, Eisenhower was a moderate, a kind of Republican that is exceedingly rare.
quote:
The truth is that the problem was always Conservative Democrats, and I think it's largely a myth that they ever even switched to the GOP. Helms was always a Republican, and Thurmond became a Republican in '68, but those the only notable exceptions to the rule. Conservatives like Nixon only began picking up real ground in the South after '72, and by that time, the civil rights movement was already more or less victorious. |
And thus the republicans used the fracturing of the much more diverse Democratic party (which had also splintered in 1948 over this issue) to gain seats in ths South by absorbing those conservative Dems into their fold.
How come you never mention that almost all significant civil rights actions in the 20th century were undertaken under Democratic administrations?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
|
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Actually, it was pushed throught by President Johnson (D), a bill introduced by another Democratic President. Given that democrats had a vast mayority in the senate at the time and that most Southern senators were democrats, well, your statement is a huge "stating the obvious" moment.
|
22 of 67 (IIRC) Democrats - 1/3 of them.
6 of 33 Republicans - 1/6 of them. Democrats were about TWICE as likely as Republicans to be voting against.
quote:
Actually, Eisenhower was a moderate, a kind of Republican that is exceedingly rare. |
Eisenhower 
I still call him a conservative. Although it's rather telling that both parties wanted him as their candidate.
quote:
And thus the republicans used the fracturing of the much more diverse Democratic party (which had also splintered in 1948 over this issue) to gain seats in ths South by absorbing those conservative Dems into their fold.
|
Indeed, they took the conservative Southern demographic away from the Democrats starting in '72.
quote:
How come you never mention that almost all significant civil rights actions in the 20th century were undertaken under Democratic administrations? |
Because it's not true?  The CRA-57 paved the way for the CRA-64. Brown v. Board was certainly a significant Civil Rights action as well. 50's were a Republican decade, 60's were a Democratic decade, and there were extremely significant advances in civil rights in both. I'd say 1954-1968 were the big civil rights years, which encompass the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Cue MrFun for more unfunness  |
Hey, I'm keeping this threadjacked so it won't encroach on your thread. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-07-2005 07:56
Attachment: 
Smiley 
|
