Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

MSH for the win. Good job finding the article.

[Virex]

Agamemnon's consent to go home:
Doesn't factor into it dude. Achilles had a choice: stay in Greece and live a long life but be forgotten or go to Troy to certainly die but be remembered forever. He made his choice. He was never considering going back.... He knew he was going to die there. He also was NOT about getting approval from that guy. He was all about his own rights which he didn't think came from some king.

He also knew he was going to die at the hands of his comrades if he would have tried to stand up to Agamemnon directly. He knew he'd return at die at the hands of the Trojans, or at least on the battlefield, which is why he could leave the camp without second thoughts, knowing fully well Agamemnon would budge eventually.

Agamemnon explicitly mentions never having laid a hand on Briseis
And again, no one knows expressly why. Maybe he was hoping to use that as a bargaining chip. Maybe he was scared that would push Achilles over the edge and his sword into his throat? Who knows.

It's unlikely Homer would have included that if it didn't serve some purpose. The story could have done without it and nothing would have changed, yet apparently it was significantly enough for Homer to add it, or for the theme to be preserved in oral tradition through the times prior to Homer writing the story down. What it could signify however, is that Agamemnon gave back to Achilles everything he had taken, completely unaltered.

I'm getting the feeling that Homer explicitly wanted Achilles to be celibate or something.
Meh, we really can't know this one either. I'd argue no because of that "Ancient Greek Heroic Code" thingy, but again all we can do is speculate on this one. I think it is possible that the originals might have actually once mentioned Achilles being gay but Translations (largely done by Christian Church Scholars) removed it through editing. It just doesn't add up. Every other Hero under the Code got sexy with just about everything. Case in point, Odysseus. I just don't think the "Code" would choose a celibate person for its poster boy. Meh, who knows.

Edit: Ahhh, Edit Ninja'd

If we look at later Greek works, we see that there are some authors that speculate at a romatic relation between Achilles and Partoclos, while others either invoke a relation to Briseis or have him get it on with another girl. A memorable scene from the Bibliotheca tells how he fell in love with the Amazon Penthesilea after having killed her (though some have argued the author actually meant 'made love' instead of 'fell in love', for your daily dose of EEEW!). To me this means that even shortly after Homer, relatively speaking, nobody realy knew which way Achilles swung exactly, meaning that Homer probably didn't explicitly state his sexual preferences. Considering the way the world worked at that time, I'd say "probably swings both ways" would be the best description for the time being.

[Truean]

Agamemnon's consent to go home:
Doesn't factor into it dude. Achilles had a choice: stay in Greece and live a long life but be forgotten or go to Troy to certainly die but be remembered forever. He made his choice. He was never considering going back.... He knew he was going to die there. He also was NOT about getting approval from that guy. He was all about his own rights which he didn't think came from some king.

He also knew he was going to die at the hands of his comrades if he would have tried to stand up to Agamemnon directly. He knew he'd return at die at the hands of the Trojans, or at least on the battlefield, which is why he could leave the camp without second thoughts, knowing fully well Agamemnon would budge eventually.

Agamemnon explicitly mentions never having laid a hand on Briseis
And again, no one knows expressly why. Maybe he was hoping to use that as a bargaining chip. Maybe he was scared that would push Achilles over the edge and his sword into his throat? Who knows.

It's unlikely Homer would have included that if it didn't serve some purpose. The story could have done without it and nothing would have changed, yet apparently it was significantly enough for Homer to add it, or for the theme to be preserved in oral tradition through the times prior to Homer writing the story down. What it could signify however, is that Agamemnon gave back to Achilles everything he had taken, completely unaltered.

I'm getting the feeling that Homer explicitly wanted Achilles to be celibate or something.
Meh, we really can't know this one either. I'd argue no because of that "Ancient Greek Heroic Code" thingy, but again all we can do is speculate on this one. I think it is possible that the originals might have actually once mentioned Achilles being gay but Translations (largely done by Christian Church Scholars) removed it through editing. It just doesn't add up. Every other Hero under the Code got sexy with just about everything. Case in point, Odysseus. I just don't think the "Code" would choose a celibate person for its poster boy. Meh, who knows.

Edit: Ahhh, Edit Ninja'd

If we look at later Greek works, we see that there are some authors that speculate at a romatic relation between Achilles and Partoclos, while others either invoke a relation to Briseis or have him get it on with another girl. A memorable scene from the Bibliotheca tells how he fell in love with the Amazon Penthesilea after having killed her (though some have argued the author actually meant 'made love' instead of 'fell in love', for your daily dose of EEEW!). To me this means that even shortly after Homer, relatively speaking, nobody realy knew which way Achilles swung exactly, meaning that Homer probably didn't explicitly state his sexual preferences. Considering the way the world worked at that time, I'd say "probably swings both ways" would be the best description for the time being.

Being afraid of Agamemnon killing him:
A Greek army could kill him as easily as a Trojan one. You're still focusing on survival as a motive though. That wasn't it at all. Achilles traded his life willingly for being remembered. He didn't care about living, he cared about doing something memorable to be remembered for without any taints. The whole thing about trying not to get killed by Agamemnon doesn't fit, because he could've easily had Achilles killed for refusing to fight. Also Agamemnon was a stubborn bastard, absolutely no guarantee he'd give her back or give in eventually.

He honestly wasn't worried about any of this and was prepared to go home because he was afraid Agamemnon had tainted his glory and legend, which would lead to him not being remembered. He thought he couldn't be remembered well after this stuff happened and was going to say "if I can't be remembered; I'll go home. Deal must be off, crap...." It was only when Patroclus got killed that he said screw everything. Even if he couldn't be remembered, he had nothing to live for now.... There's that rage again....

Agamemnon explicitly mentions never having laid a hand on Briseis [2]:
Even if I accept your argument that it wouldn't be put in there without meaning, that doesn't say what that meaning is and it certainly doesn't conclude they ever had a romantic relationship. Even if I go and say "this proves Achilles got everything back from Agamemnon exactly as it was before it was taken," that doesn't mean he had a romantic relationship with her before she was taken....

Good point about inclusion = meaning, but what meaning was that and does it go to prove romance?

Some authors that speculate at a romantic relation between Achilles and _________:
Fan fiction isn't cannon.

But, yup, we don't know. The story's been mangled over 3000 years. Fact is it doesn't say he had a romantic relationship with ANYONE.

I just find it hard to believe (as many do) that the "star quarterback" never got any ever..... All we can do is speculate from whom he got it. I've made my arguments about him being gay and I think they're pretty good ones. I also think the ones for Briseis are pretty weak. Basically he sorta kinda "won" her, thought she was neato but (despite everyone else in the book talking about sex) never said they did it, and got pissed when Agamemnon took her. That's about all there is for that one that I'm seeing. Then I look at what I see as the huge mass of "he's gay" arguments and just sorta compare the two.... Guess where I come out on that issue....

There really isn't and can't be a conclusive right answer, but I read those books long ago and totally thought he was gay....

[Heron TSG]

Given the propensity for servants in Homer's works to reveal secrets, it's plausible that Achilles didn't have sex with the 'others' while he was hiding to avoid his identity being revealed.

(Not that I'm arguing against Achilles being gay. There was something going on with Patroclus.)

[Truean]

Problems with Wall St. and stock valuation:

So, the stock market has recently taken a lovely dip and people are freaking out about it: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dow-falls-512-in-steepest-apf-169769799.html?x=0

Remember, it's only a recession if it effects the rich.... So naturally, they are now saying this will be bad for the economy, spending and hiring [sigh]

I really do get economics and I did all the math that goes with it in undergrad. I got a lot of "ewww" responses when I told people that was my major.... Math was "icky," [sigh].

The problem with the current valuation of stocks and commodities is that it's largely based on opinion. I know all the arguments about how owner's equity, supply/demand and that are computed and here's why they all fail. The stock price just dropped straight down.... Yesterday, the stock was worth a lot; now it is certainly not.... What happened? What is this Atlantis, lost in a single day and night of misfortune? I think a lot of people are wondering where exactly all that money goes when something "magically" loses value overnight. It's a fair question but we really don't have an answer....

Commodities, oil is an example most people will know, are the same way. There are speculators and yes they speculate or roll the dice with the price of commodities like oil. They will buy it at some price and gamble that they can find someone to sell it to for a higher price. They reason there is an inelastic demand for oil (there's no such thing as true inelasticity but meh) so people will have to buy it no matter what the price. This is how it got to $140/barrel a bit ago.... Except of course this is crap, because at some point, your need to buy oil doesn't translate into an ability to buy oil--it just gets too damn expensive at some point....

Yet, for all this, we really don't have a good method of valuation, which at some point we desperately need. I'm curious as to other people's opinion on this.

[The Doctor]

"This is bad for the economy, spending, and hiring..."

Good thing they weren't doing any of that, eh?

[KaelGotDwarves]

*edited for Socialist/Marxist rant of how truly screwed the proletariats are through our dystopian-capitalist system of socialising the losses and privatising the profits and all the while exploiting developing countries*



Nothing to see here, carry on.

[The Doctor]

Cutting Defence Funding could leave America helpless.

Now, it's from Al Jazeera (not sure if you guys like 'em or not), and I don't know all too much (halp truean)

But from what I've heard, the defence budget is absurdly over-blown. This just seems like him going "NONONO DON'T TAKE MY SHINIES AWAY! YOU'LL BE SORRY!"

[PsyberianHusky]

Cutting Defence Funding could leave America helpless.

Now, it's from Al Jazeera (not sure if you guys like 'em or not), and I don't know all too much (halp truean)

But from what I've heard, the defence budget is absurdly over-blown. This just seems like him going "NONONO DON'T TAKE MY SHINIES AWAY! YOU'LL BE SORRY!"

The problem I have with our defense spending is the amount that is being wasted on overhead and contractor favoritism, or atleast that is what I have gleaned from talking to some programmers who have worked in defense.

I know ANYTHING government is bad at being efficient, but the backend of our current system is particularly bad, and I have a feeling it is the people on the front end who will feel it the most.

[G-Flex]

Our country does not need to spend vast amounts more than any other nation on Earth (both per-capita and in absolute terms) on defense. There's just no damned reason at all except for, maybe, the fact that we like to overextend ourselves.

[Virex]

The problem with the current valuation of stocks and commodities is that it's largely based on opinion. I know all the arguments about how owner's equity, supply/demand and that are computed and here's why they all fail. The stock price just dropped straight down.... Yesterday, the stock was worth a lot; now it is certainly not.... What happened? What is this Atlantis, lost in a single day and night of misfortune? I think a lot of people are wondering where exactly all that money goes when something "magically" loses value overnight. It's a fair question but we really don't have an answer....

If the value of goods plummets, nothing happens to the money. The amount of money in the world is, seen on the scale of say a few days, roughly constant (it grows slowly and the effect is IIRC only noticeable on a scale of months unless some country fires up the presses). This means that if you buy stocks and then the stocks plummet, your assets lost value, but you didn't lose any money, because you already spent the money at some prior point to get the stocks. What this ultimately means is that if the value of money remains roughly constant (no hyperinflation), yet a significant portion of the population experiences a drop in purchasing power, then the only possible explanation is that there's a buildup of money somewhere else, for example at the bank account of clever stock brokers.

[Siquo]

There really isn't and can't be a conclusive right answer, but I read those books long ago and totally thought he was gay....

Have you considered the cultural aspect? In Ancient Greece, "doing it" with men didn't make you gay.

I think that whole gay/nongay dichotomy is much more recent, labels that are just inventions.

Virex, that works if money were just one thing. It's not. If you buy stocks, you can borrow money based on the value of that stock, using it as collateral and buy more with that. Everyone does this. The problem arises when your stock crashes, your collateral is worth less than your loans, and you have to pay more money than you have. If everyone just invested the money they had, there'd be no problem, it's just that we're inventing "money" (value might be a better word but it's used as money) left and right, based on speculation on the value of goods, and if that fails, the invented money fails. And that can go fast, and the amount of invented money outweighs the "real" money more and more each year.

It's like borrowing money from the future, based on the projection of current growth. Here's something more on the amount and types of amounts of money.

[MonkeyHead]

I think that whole gay/nongay dichotomy is much more recent, labels that are just inventions.

Isnt this strongly linked to religions and thier "laws"... ?

[Siquo]

Maybe, eventually. The OT specifically states "sodomy", not "gay people". So even the label was invented much later, but indeed perhaps by the religions. I'm not that good at gay history, 't was just a thought.

[G-Flex]

Maybe, eventually. The OT specifically states "sodomy", not "gay people".

I sincerely doubt the word "sodomy" appears in translations of the Old Testament when it comes to laws against homosexual activity.