I'd consider another name if you plan to use the bow for anything, and tell people that you named it. Eventually it will probably wind up biting you in the keister. It's almost like someone buying a gun and naming it "Lee Harvey Oswald", or "John Wilkes Booth".[/quote]
When all you know is fascism, you'd be excused for becoming an anarchist in my book...
Anyways, as the old saying goes "one country's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'". Fawkes is rather popular in Ireland, among other places. And no, V for Vendetta is not my primary source to knowledge about Guy Fawkes.
OT: imbuing inanimate objects with personalities (to a lesser degree) is quite common, you do it ever time you curse one, or beg your computer to not crash. Giving an object you use or encounter often is not really a long step from this.[/quote]
I tend to disagree, order always beats chaos, and the worst facism beats even the best anarchy easily (especially seeing as there is only one kind).
Guy Fawkes wasn't some great revolutionary fighting against facism, no matter what he believed (and I doubt even he believed that). He was basically the equivilent of Timothy Macveigh, figuring that he'd blow up a goverment building because he didn't like a lot of things that were going on. To some extent he's worse than Booth or Oswald because they went after a person they felt was responsible, Fawkes pretty much figured he'd mess with everyone and didn't care who got hurt. They burn this guy in Effigy for a reason.
To put things into perspective though, consider that within an oppressive and facist regime things might not be pleasant, but the system itself still sees you as a cog in the machine and wants to keep you working. Even if it's brutal and kills people regularly, the general point is generally not going to be to kill people for the sake of killing them. The conditions might blow chips, but chances are your going to have what it takes to keep you alive and doing your job.
That sounds terrible until you consider that under Anarchy, there isn't any society, there is no food or shelter unless you make it yourself, and your constantly at the mercy of everyone else since nobody enforces any standards by definition. The biggest, meanest, most sadistic guy around basically gets to be king, while you do whatever he wants... why?
because he can make you. If you happen to be that guy, then of course your constantly
worried about a bigger guy showing up to do the same thing to you. As soon as you start saying "wait, that is what I mean, I mean anarchy but with rules" you miss the point, anarchy means NO RULES, a complete break down of social order. As soon as you impose rules you create a new society.
Generally speaking people exist between those extremes, though typically people in a society that gravitates more towards one end of the spectrum lusts for the other. People in a country like the US which is pretty bloody free, will scream about how they want even more freedom because of the rules. People in a country like a third world hell hole where order is fairly weak, want MORE order, enforced rules, and social order to allow the development of an infrastructure, and so they can simply not have to worry about having a weapon shoved in their face every 15 minutes (or need to shove a weapon in someone else's face to get anything done).
No society is utopian, but anyone who thinks it would be a great idea to plunge a civilized nation with a working social order totally into chaos, is quite frankly insane.
It should also be noted that most oppressive societies don't just suddenly decide "hey let's become horrible and oppressive" for no paticular reason. Typically there are good reasons. For example tight, and brutal goverment controls might be needed when resources are very tight, individual freedom having to take a dive before making sure everyone gets enough, and those who contribute the most get proportionatly what they need to keep going. In such an enviroment human life (another mouth to feed) might be very cheap, especially when it contributes very little.
This is incidently one of the reasons why for all my pretensions of global unity and everything in other posts, when dealing with current events I have very much a "live and let live" attitude for the moment. I tend to get very extreme and militant when it comes to nations and cultures that threaten mine, or present an obstacle to what I see as the "endgame" of the current state of humanity, but by the same token I make no pretensions that we can go into another nation and make things better by kicking over an oppressive infrastructure because in the end the same conditions are going to exist, and chances are we're going to have to be just as bad to maintain order in the region. We can't wave a magic wand and make the conditions underlying a lot of this stuff disappear.
Good nation, or bad nation, nothing is going to be accomplished by randomly walking up and blowing up a goverment building, even Parliment or The Capitol Building. The only time things like that matter is as a morale strike when committed by another nation for the most part. Basically if an American blows up The White House it's a pointless tradgedy which will change nothing excpet to cause short term chaos. If another nation like China blows up The White House that would mean something especially if there is nothing we can do about it (which would be the point they would be making by doing it).
-
As far as assigning personalities to objects, that's going a bit too far. I think people speaking "to" their computer are expressing frustration, not actually assigning it identity as a being...
... and honestly, if you start talking to a weapon, I think you've got serious issues or have at least seen too many re-runs of "Sledge Hammer", especially if it answers back.
