Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:I'll tell you what's destructive: dichotomous thinking.

what?! If you can see the relationship, then get the hell out of the classroom, and into the real world before you start using big words.

For the last hour, I've been trying to figure out whether this was a silly or stupid question. Either way, it's a push.

There are some things out there that ought to be destroyed: Inequality, al-Qaeda, human suffering, cancer, etc.

There are things that ought not to be destroyed: EA forums, good music. Beer. And many things you can slip into the blank _______________.

There are things that ought to be created: Good music, good EA forum threads, a cure for cancer, etc.

There are things that history shows ought not to have been created: Atomic weapons, al-Qaeda, inequality, etc.

Nature is imperfect. We need both. Wisely used.

I should be in Boston hearing TNY. Fuck. I'm drunk.

I have no idea how someone intelligent could prefer Celine to Proust. Proust rivals Shakespeare in his profundity of thought and radiance of language.

Destruction is much easier than creation. Therefore, creation is nobler.

O.K. Nerbles, I'm not asking about the morality aspect, that's why words such as "objectively" were used. I'm asking which is more essential.
After studying creation via architecture, an destruction via war, it has become apparent to me that great leaps forward, stylistically, and in terms of subject are created from the pyres of civilizations. Proust never lived his life and is therefore elementally stupid.

NerblyBear wrote:I have no idea how someone intelligent could prefer Celine to Proust. Proust rivals Shakespeare in his profundity of thought and radiance of language.

Sure, but Celine has a wonderful sense of humor and often causes me to laugh out loud at his black descriptions of human tendencies. Celine wins.

hazen wrote: Proust never lived his life and is therefore elementally stupid.

If you're referring to his later seclusion due to illness, I fail to see how that justifies the claim that he "never lived his life". He wasn't a hermit; in fact, he was one of the most socially active writers we've had.

Elementally stupid? I can't think of a more intelligent novelist off the top of my head. Maybe Henry James.

AND HOW ABOUT THE LUCK INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS? PREVIOUSLEY LABOURING OVER MORE THAN ONE SHEET OF STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS TO DESIGN ONE LOAD BEARING BEAM FOR A SHABBY LEAN-TO.

I NOW DEVASTATE MIGHTY TREES, RAILROAD-TRACKS, AND FINALIZE THE DISMEMBERMENT OF OH SO MANY GIDERS AND JOISTS WITH THE SIMPLEST OF ARITHMATIC...ONE LINE NO LESS. I CAN ALSO MANUFACTURE CHLORINE GAS, PROPER MOLETOV COCKTAILS (PROPER ONES MIND YOU), GOOD-OLD FASHIONED NAPALM AND SOME AMMONIUM NITRATE CHARGES TO BOOT. ALL THIS WITHOUT GOING ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEPTH OF STUDY THAT CREATION INVOLVED. OH...SPLENDID RELEASE INDEED.

One and the same aren't they?