It’s even worse when you meet through the reading of such a comment.

we Canadainas have always had to stand strong in the face of american recklessness with their cute pursuit of “freedom,” something I’ve noticed that they describe in alarmingly specific terms. fight the good fight.

That is a harsh prescription, even in the name of good debate. I am wholly unable to read Rand without hurling the book across the room (once for Atlas Shrugged, twice for The Fountainhead) in annoyance. Hopefully Milan can manage to be less literarily abusive if he undertakes the task.

“It’s a position to which I have difficulty responding and that makes me wish my recollections about political theory were a bit sharper”

Translation: this girl is the kind of American stereotype we’ve all heard about but thankfully have never met, and you are not prepared to put a rift in a new friendship by debating harshly, in a “kerrie upon meeting your friend marc” manner.

My advice on sharpening your argument, once you are willing to debate, is to read an Ayn Rand novel, reflect on how idiotic that philosophy is, and apply logic as necessary.

Good luck in class!

That said, I am going to recommend a book which I just finished, as required course reading. It is called “One Dimensional Man” by Herbert Marcuse. It’s 230 pages, and a fairly quick read (for me at least). You will be happy to hear that only about 15 of those pages concern linguistic analysis. He is mostly concerned with basic ethics, and how they contradict the basic constitution of society in obvious ways, and why this is able to continue with no one complaining. I think you would disagree with much of the book, but in a useful way. And the best part - it’s right below your room.

Also, there is little point in talking with people who you agree with completely: it causes the mental faculties to atrophy. Not that I can think of anyone who you see entirely eye-to-eye with.