Just like Mauritania sees women differently? I'm sure they can give you variety of economic and cultural factors for it too.Turquoise wrote:
While I would agree that most of our economic peers regard the death penalty as barbaric, I would suggest that they would view it differently if they had as many murders as us.Ticia wrote:
But then places like the US supposedly so advanced still make excuses for barbaric actions like the death penalty....
The whys and hows matter then? Can we use moral relativism for it?
Violent crime tends to be higher in America than in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, but that has to do with a variety of factors that are mostly economic but only somewhat cultural.
So, the hows and whys matter for why we have more violent crime, but they don't matter as much with the death penalty itself, since it's really just a reaction to violent crime. I would be willing to bet that we wouldn't have the death penalty if we had less violent crime to begin with.
By the same token, I think more of Europe would have the death penalty if they had more violent crime.
Search
Search results: 534 found, showing up to 50
But then places like the US supposedly so advanced still make excuses for barbaric actions like the death penalty....Turquoise wrote:
He's not expecting them to be at the same point. He's expecting them to move toward the same point. That's a vital and important difference.Uzique wrote:
wow so you acknowledge that morality is relative but then expect every single nation to progress alongside and with the west's history and timescale. hahaha. WOW. how incredibly intelligent. everything is relative - not just morality, and to impose your standards, progress and circumstances upon anyone else is narrowminded-- this is exactly what i am saying. turq's best counter-argument so far has been that reductionism and narrowmindedness is perhaps somehow crudely 'necessary', or a part of the way we, as a human species, look at the world. okay, perhaps. but you can't acknowledge that morality is relative and then expect every country with a vastly different socio-cultural history to be at the same fucking point. that's beyond retarded.
My point was that the simple truth is that we are more advanced than they are. The hows and whys matter less than the current state of affairs.
Simply acknowledging that we are more advanced was really all I was getting at, but you seem to assume that moral relativism even denies us that.
Eveira isn't imposing his standards, he's suggesting that our current progress ahead of theirs is a good reason to condemn their practices and to aid the victims of their lack of progress.
It just seems like, again and again, you continually make excuses for the barbaric actions of less evolved cultures.
The whys and hows matter then? Can we use moral relativism for it?
Let's just all agree on blaming Lady Gaga.
Yes, the EU does the exact same thing.11 Bravo wrote:
really? cant be as bad as the US where some farmers are paid to not plant things?
American charged with hacking after snooping on wife's emailsA Michigan man has been charged under anti-hacking legislation designed to protect trade secrets after logging on to his wife's email account and discovering she was having an affair.
Leon Walker, 33, faces a trial lawyers say could have significant repercussions given that nearly half of US divorce cases involve some form of snooping, such as reading emails, text messages or social networking.
Walker was charged after opening the Gmail account of his wife, Clara, who was married twice previously. Walker found she was having an affair with her second husband, who had once been arrested for beating her in front of her young son from her first husband.
Walker handed the emails over to the boy's father, saying he was concerned for the child's safety. The father sought custody.
"I was doing what I had to do," Walker told the Detroit Free Press. "We're talking about putting a child in danger."
When Clara Walker discovered the emails had been read and passed on she went to the authorities.
The Walkers were divorced earlier this month.
The Oakland County prosecutor, Jessica Cooper, said Walker broke the law by hacking in to his former wife's account.
Walker says the computer was shared. His former wife claims it was hers alone.
Walker's lawyer said the prosecutor was "dead wrong" about the law.
"I've been a defence attorney for 34 years and I've never seen anything like this," Leon Weiss told the Detroit Free Press. "This is a hacking statute, the kind of statute they use if you try to break into a government system or private business for some nefarious purpose. It's to protect against identity fraud, to keep somebody from taking somebody's intellectual property or trade secrets."
"I have to ask: Don't the prosecutors have more important things to do with their time?"
Walker is due to stand trial in February.
Just because you get married your privacy should still be respected but putting your husband in jail for this is a bit too much
Plus something tells me if it was the woman snooping around she would have a lot more sympathy.
And there you have it, 100% with you on this.EVieira wrote:
I don't think so. Rape is not condemned there at all, sex outside of marriage is. And its always the woman's fault.Ticia wrote:
I think it was Ken some posts back who rightly mentioned the problem with rape in places that follow the Sharia law. When all sex outside of marriage is illegal and women are told to lead a very guarded life, just the simple fact of a woman alone on the street is enough to label her as a prostitute.
See it this way...you know how when a woman in our own societies dresses very provocatively she's seen as she's "asking for it"?
Rape is condemned there as it is here, difference is women here don't accept this kind of bullshit.
There was a time when we were as backwards as they are now, when women were second class citizens. Women couldn't vote, work and rape was very frowned upon, but there really were no laws against it. Not any that actually had a decent punishment, when there was a law rape was often a simple felony or misdemeanor.
But we evolved, and we need to push the rest of the world to evolve too. Culture is not an excuse for oppression, not anymore at least.
But is going to take awhile to see any real changes. Hell, slavery in Mauritania was only criminalized in 2007
As of now not I'm not sure if anything can be done but help women who seek asylum.
Aww...Germany is acting like an outsider reading the tabloids again? The EU crisis started in 1957
Greece is not taking the money and running with it. They are like all of us piggies responding to the crisis with the right corrective financial measures and implementing unparalleled structural reforms.
The economies of the eurozone are so interrelated that the need for financial supervisory and regulatory authorities is obvious, if any of the members have a problem with this then tough luck.
Greece is not taking the money and running with it. They are like all of us piggies responding to the crisis with the right corrective financial measures and implementing unparalleled structural reforms.
The economies of the eurozone are so interrelated that the need for financial supervisory and regulatory authorities is obvious, if any of the members have a problem with this then tough luck.
Lolita was 12 and a half.Turquoise wrote:
lol... but seriously... even though both actions are illegal, an adult having sex with a 16 year old is different from an adult having sex with an 8 year old. Both are considered pedophilia by the law, but clinically, the term pedophilia specifically references prepubescent minors.Ticia wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lol... I don't know.. The girl in Lolita was older than the kids this guy is targeting....
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7629/pedophile.jpg
Again, it's a gross topic, but it's a distinction worth mentioning....
Turquoise wrote:
lol... I don't know.. The girl in Lolita was older than the kids this guy is targeting....Ticia wrote:
Exactly. No false advertising, if this book ends up in your hand then is all on you,man.Turquoise wrote:
Well, neither of them were quite as direct about it as this guy though....
Exactly. No false advertising, if this book ends up in your hand then is all on you,man.Turquoise wrote:
Well, neither of them were quite as direct about it as this guy though....Ticia wrote:
At least the title of the book says it all, don't like it don't buy it.
Lolita would never be published today and Lewis Carrol of Alice in the Wonderland fame would be locked up for life these days.
At least the title of the book says it all, don't like it don't buy it.
Lolita would never be published today and Lewis Carrol of Alice in the Wonderland fame would be locked up for life these days.
Lolita would never be published today and Lewis Carrol of Alice in the Wonderland fame would be locked up for life these days.
Good luck finding any real virgins in the USTurquoise wrote:
Last year, there was an interesting story about an Al Quida operative we captured who responded more favorably to cookies than other terrorists did from things like waterboarding.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 91,00.html
Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures. It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda - including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers - but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."
In short, we killed him.... with kindness.
Maybe this could be applied to other captives. The whole 72 virgins idea seems like a serious desire for sex, so maybe we could hire "virgins" for other "interrogations."
Granted, this could backfire. We may end up with "terrorists" turning themselves in for some "virgins."
I think it was Ken some posts back who rightly mentioned the problem with rape in places that follow the Sharia law. When all sex outside of marriage is illegal and women are told to lead a very guarded life, just the simple fact of a woman alone on the street is enough to label her as a prostitute.EVieira wrote:
I don't agree with you Ticia. If they are confortable in their roles, even if it makes them 2nd class citizens, thats for them to choose, but that dosen't mean they can be raped at will by anyone. They can still be second class citizens if the laws starts punishing rapists.Ticia wrote:
Media talks a lot about the lack of women's rights but the truth is most Muslim women agree with those laws, in fact they'll say they exist to protect them.
You see the same in ultra-conservative environments, where women are the perfect mothers and housewives and are content to take the role of a second class citizen. I'm sure rape victims are probably treated in a very similar way.
All this can not be seen in the same manner we approach what exists within the realm of logic.
The only ones we should worry about are the ones who want out.
We do have to approach this within the realm of logic and condemn such barbaric laws. Just as the stoning of Sakineh in Iran created a large response of the international comunity.
See it this way...you know how when a woman in our own societies dresses very provocatively she's seen as she's "asking for it"?
Rape is condemned there as it is here, difference is women here don't accept this kind of bullshit.
Nah... I would say is because even the rich and powerful watch too much Fox NewsTurquoise wrote:
Haha... well, that's the trick, isn't it? Wealth doesn't equal intelligence. Even education doesn't guarantee things like wisdom.Ticia wrote:
Then I would expect to be runned better since they're so intelligentTurquoise wrote:
Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway. Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters? Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.
So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree. And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
I guess if we really dig deep, nearly every society is the same. It's just a matter of the wealthy few running things, but that wealth is gained by a myriad of ways. The ratio of idiots to intelligent people is probably the same among the wealthy as everyone else, so that's why mediocrity and corruption are inevitable.
That's what I mean, help her move out if she wants to.Turquoise wrote:
Good points, but on the flipside... why should we worry about the ones who want out? In all likelihood, this particular victim will continue on with her life in Mauritania. She might continue to speak out against her government, but ultimately, the only way her life actually could improve is to move somewhere else.Ticia wrote:
Media talks a lot about the lack of women's rights but the truth is most Muslim women agree with those laws, in fact they'll say they exist to protect them.
You see the same in ultra-conservative environments, where women are the perfect mothers and housewives and are content to take the role of a second class citizen. I'm sure rape victims are probably treated in a very similar way.
All this can not be seen in the same manner we approach what exists within the realm of logic.
The only ones we should worry about are the ones who want out.
If anything, it just shows that morality is relative as are rights. All that matters is whether or not you can convince people to accept something.
Then I would expect to be runned better since they're so intelligentTurquoise wrote:
Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway. Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters? Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.Ticia wrote:
And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.
Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree. And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
Media talks a lot about the lack of women's rights but the truth is most Muslim women agree with those laws, in fact they'll say they exist to protect them.
You see the same in ultra-conservative environments, where women are the perfect mothers and housewives and are content to take the role of a second class citizen. I'm sure rape victims are probably treated in a very similar way.
All this can not be seen in the same manner we approach what exists within the realm of logic.
The only ones we should worry about are the ones who want out.
You see the same in ultra-conservative environments, where women are the perfect mothers and housewives and are content to take the role of a second class citizen. I'm sure rape victims are probably treated in a very similar way.
All this can not be seen in the same manner we approach what exists within the realm of logic.
The only ones we should worry about are the ones who want out.
And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.Turquoise wrote:
Fair point, but well... My argument is that a significant portion of the population has little potential beyond being useful idiots. You basically need at least an IQ of 110 or 120 to be more than just one of those.Ticia wrote:
Guess not.Turquoise wrote:
Most people don't think for themselves anyway. Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?
But if you keep being treated like an idiot, you become an idiot.
It's not that people below that IQ are useless, but you can't really expect them to be more than just a cog in a very large wheel. They're going to be swayed by all of the shit they hear and see, and you can't really legislate content without mostly ending the notion of a free press.
I'd rather live in a country where media is free to propagandize than in one where the only propagandist is the government.
This is part of why democracy is flawed, however. Ideally, only the intelligent would vote, but there's really no accurate or constitutional way to setup a system that manages that.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.
Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
Guess not.Turquoise wrote:
Most people don't think for themselves anyway. Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?Ticia wrote:
If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.
But if you keep being treated like an idiot, you become an idiot.
If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if nothing else, I can't really say I hate Fox News anymore. I actually agree with them on certain things -- like this census issue.
I think the point of media really isn't objectivity anyway. Cross referencing is what every viewer should do, and so expecting a single source to be objective is kind of naive.
Edward R. Murrow wasn't exactly objective in his view of McCarthy, but what he did still garners respect among journalists because of the importance of fighting the police state antics that McCarthy supported.
So honestly, maybe journalism is actually best off as an activist tool. There are left wingers and right wingers in media, but what matters is that consumers cross reference their sources to determine the truth of what they are being told.
Personally, I still don't think Williams should have been fired, and honestly, I'm not sure if Totenberg should be either.
The one thing you have to give Fox credit for is that they are honest about their bias. They make it pretty obvious what side they favor, whereas NPR pretends to be objective.
Yes, cause they have the budget for it.Kmar wrote:
most welfare programs are paid for by the state.Ticia wrote:
No, this is why your State doesn't do shit about itKmar wrote:
That's why people shit out more kids on da welfare.
No, this is why your State doesn't do shit about itKmar wrote:
That's why people shit out more kids on da welfare.
I can see a huge difference between criticising/offending a specific Senator or military General and making bigoted remarks about Muslims in general.
But I'll give you one thing NPR calls this woman their legal affairs correspondent while Juan Williams was supposed to be just a news analyst, maybe all media should just shut up about objectivity
But I'll give you one thing NPR calls this woman their legal affairs correspondent while Juan Williams was supposed to be just a news analyst, maybe all media should just shut up about objectivity
Not if the wrong message is we're insane overhere.Turquoise wrote:
That sends the wrong message though. By accounting for illegals in budgets, you make it easier for states to ignore this problem rather than encouraging them to solve it.OrangeHound wrote:
The census is used for more than just voting districts and representation. It is also used to determine Federal distribution of resources: where to spend money for schools, housing, health care, job training, economic development and more – more than $400 billion a year by the federal government alone.Turquoise wrote:
So, I guess the question is... was it really a good idea to count illegals in the census?
Illegal immigrants use schools, health care, highways, libraries, etc. So, counting illegals immigrants can account for the proportional share of how resources are actually used.
Until states truly feel the pain of having a large group of people within them that doesn't properly pay for services rendered, the costs just get passed to taxpaying citizens. The people of states without many illegals shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of states that don't attempt to remove their illegals.
I suppose the question is why would any State bother with fighting illegal immigration in the first place? If by counting them all they get a bigger budget and more electoral votes?
In fact I would go for new road signs in every State
You are entering _______. Illegals are always welcome
Not that.Turquoise wrote:
I think she's implying that conservatives would be more apt to defend a conservative figure and denounce a liberal one, and vice versa.11 Bravo wrote:
lol what are you? 12 yrs old?Ticia wrote:
Can you imagine why?
Glass houses.
We all have biases.
The problem with conservatives is more about how they claim to be on a higher moral ground than the rest of us. When one is caught in a scandal of this nature then people are generally harder on them. Might not be fair but is fitting for those who do as I say not as I do
Can you imagine why?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
It is amazing how everyone is falling over themselves to seem tolerant and even handed. Can you imagine the same discussion if it was some conservative figure ?
Glass houses.
Again, my only problem with it is if they grew up together. Can anyone be naive enough to believe a sexual attraction between siblings only arises when they're adults? When this happens, and despite popular belief and Freud is not common at all (look up Westermarck effect), is usually earlier and the abuse factor is almost always present.Turquoise wrote:
I'm sure it can, but hypothetically, if no history of abuse is there, if a brother and sister wanted to do this as adults, I can't really see how the government can get involved.Ticia wrote:
Yes.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
Don't get me wrong, I find it thoroughly disgusting, but I also just have a hard time justifying intervention in a situation like that.
Your argument involving a parent and son or daughter makes sense because of the inevitable connection to abuse, but with siblings, I can see how it might happen without abuse involved.
Yes.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?Ticia wrote:
A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?Turquoise wrote:
While I definitely agree with the contextual side of this, I believe it becomes a moot point when both people are adults.Ticia wrote:
The genetics argument can't be used without procreation, take two brothers or a father and a son.
But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.
Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
Social services should have the funding and power to stop abuses such as these during childhood, but if 2 adults want to do this sort of thing, then legal recourse is no longer relevant.
It's the difference between having a nanny state and having common decency. Obviously, we can't allow child abuse, but the government can't get involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
The genetics argument can't be used without procreation, take two brothers or a father and a son.
But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.
Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.
Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
The beauty of dreams...don't really care about what your awake stage finds disgusting.dayarath wrote:
I don't swing that way, simple as.Ticia wrote:
Or you do but just choose to forget that part
The idea of sexual interaction inbetween men to me is disgusting.
Or you do but just choose to forget that partdayarath wrote:
Well I don't dream of guys.Ticia wrote:
Who said otherwise? Guys need to stop the silly homophobic stance,really. I dream of making out with a girl am I now a lesbian 'cause of it?
The idea alone
So tasteless of you.JohnG@lt wrote:
To you. I prefer lesbian porn with a strap-on involvedTicia wrote:
Gay porn is all eye candy actuallyJohnG@lt wrote:
No, because girls are attractive Guys are not.
Gay porn is all eye candy actuallyJohnG@lt wrote:
No, because girls are attractive Guys are not.Ticia wrote:
Who said otherwise? Guys need to stop the silly homophobic stance,really. I dream of making out with a girl am I now a lesbian 'cause of it?JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm all hetero baby.
Who said otherwise? Guys need to stop the silly homophobic stance,really. I dream of making out with a girl am I now a lesbian 'cause of it?JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm all hetero baby.Ticia wrote:
Most guys I know it would be yes, doubt they would admit it thoughJohnG@lt wrote:
No.
Same outcome.Turquoise wrote:
Ideally, yes. In practice, you just have to be good at bullshitting or diverting blame.Ticia wrote:
No. You have to change your values and rules and be open to the public so they can know who the fuck they're voting for.A cynic is someone who knows things are wrong but accepts them. A gullible person doesn't realize things are wrong and therefore has no reason to be concerned in the first place.Ticia wrote:
I don't see much difference between cynics and gullible here.
Most guys I know it would be yes, doubt they would admit it thoughJohnG@lt wrote:
No.Ticia wrote:
Psychological tests or just someone with a really good gaydar?EVieira wrote:
Czech gay asylum 'phallometric test' criticised by EU
What amazed me even more was that it said Czech Republic was the only EU country still using the "sexual arousal" test . And the name of the test: "phalometric test" Sounds more like an entry exam for porn stars.
So is it immoral or correct to "gay test" people who seek gay asylum? And how precise is the test anyway...
Question: for guys wouldn't be the norm to be aroused no matter the content of the porn flick? Sex is sex,right?
No. You have to change your values and rules and be open to the public so they can know who the fuck they're voting for.dayarath wrote:
If those rules and values aren't applicable for the sake of progress you have to adjust your stance.Ticia wrote:
You don't play by your own rules and values period.
I don't see much difference between cynics and gullible here.Turquoise wrote:
lol... I'm a cynic, so I'm used to corruption. I don't support it, but I don't really fight it either. I function because I vent my frustrations with the system through debates while still being able to distract myself by enjoying the simpler aspects of life.Ticia wrote:
The public as in you too I presume.
The average person is probably the same in the latter respect but more naive in the former. The average person isn't a cynic, but people are generally gullible and sometimes idealistic.
Psychological tests or just someone with a really good gaydar?EVieira wrote:
Czech gay asylum 'phallometric test' criticised by EUBBC News wrote:
The Fundamental Rights Agency said the Czech Republic was the only EU country still using a "sexual arousal" test.
Gay asylum seekers are hooked up to a machine that monitors blood-flow to the penis and are then shown straight porn.
Those applicants who become aroused are denied asylum.
What amazed me even more was that it said Czech Republic was the only EU country still using the "sexual arousal" test . And the name of the test: "phalometric test" Sounds more like an entry exam for porn stars.
So is it immoral or correct to "gay test" people who seek gay asylum? And how precise is the test anyway...
Question: for guys wouldn't be the norm to be aroused no matter the content of the porn flick? Sex is sex,right?
You don't play by your own rules and values period.dayarath wrote:
The corruptness of western government is exaggerated. (F.ex. leaks topping almost a million documents and only a handful of shady dealings, none of which except for the UN spying indicate corrupt government.).Turquoise wrote:
I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed. For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact. Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country. I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.
All that matters is that these things stay under wraps. The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.
I do however recognize that the rest of the world doesn't play by our rules and values and as such you will have to engage in activities deemed unacceptable by those values to get stuff done there. These dealings have to remain classified, in this case the government has to keep itself in check and not make the mistakes of going overboard such as the support for insurgent groups during the cold war.
The public as in you too I presume.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed. For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact. Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country. I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.dayarath wrote:
Disagree, transparancy up to a certain point should be possible and everyone would ultimately benefit - a happier public, more support for the government, making them capable of doing more. I'm not saying the gov. should open up it's doors for all to see - diplomatic engagements should still remain classified to protect trust and so on.Turquoise wrote:
Good points... in hindsight, transparency in government tends to hinder effectiveness. He never should have campaigned on that to begin with, because it's a joke and honestly not something you really want much of if you plan to accomplish much.
All that matters is that these things stay under wraps. The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.
I'll look up the Swedish law when I have more time.jsnipy wrote:
the first question before posting " " is: is this is a fact?
If it was only one blog I would find it fishy too but there are tons out there saying the same
WikiLeaks Sex Scandal: CASE OF THE BROKEN CONDOM
When the love/infatuation/desire is gone nothing of that really matters, of course you can keep the relationship but is that the ideal for anyone? Unless is some arrangement like the one G@lt mentioned?Turquoise wrote:
I agree, but I think that a lover sometimes has to draw the line. For example, jealousy is normally an irrational response, but it's understandable if a guy or girl wants to restrict his/her lover with regard to the time he/she spends with someone that he/she views as a threat to the relationship.Ticia wrote:
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.
It's kind of like what Uzique said on the last page. Sometimes feelings for someone else that undermine a relationship never occur if someone is restricted from interacting with that particular person to a degree.
You could argue that this is an admittance of the vulnerability and possible eventual failure of the relationship, but then again, it is consistent with the concept of there being multiple people you are compatible with. The idea that there is only one person in the world you are "meant to be with" is obviously antiquated, and so this necessitates certain precautionary measures.
For example, if you could somehow quantify the percentage of the general populace you could feasibly maintain a long term relationship with, this percentage would give you an idea of how likely your current relationship will fail if your lover is not careful about interaction with potential "competition" so to speak. Granted, it's very easy for someone to go overboard in this and become overly possessive.
On the other hand, a certain minimal amount of possessiveness is probably necessary to avoid certain threats to the longevity of a relationship. One form of this is sexual exclusivity. Emotional exclusivity is obviously harder to maintain, but it can be somewhat aided through communication and in being mindful of the history between your lover and a given friend.
For me the moment a couple wants different things and starts looking for an escape whether is sex or an emotional link with someone else then it means the relationship is done.
Sometimes it can be only the wish but if it is constant and people only don't act on it because of lack of opportunities or restriction partners have put on them then there's a word for it and that is settling. Some have no problems with it, many even say one way or the other everyone settles, but that is bullshit and deep inside we all know it.
Some countries when they want to support some terrorist group have the decency of naming them freedom fighters. Calling them terrorists and then backing them up against an ally and using the lesser of two evils argument is weak.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ticia wrote:
Where to start?FEOS wrote:
Why do I feel like I'm talking to Dilbert here?
There's no duplicity or international law breaking. Any allusions to Le Carre or his ilk are all in your head. You have some notion that diplomacy is pure as the driven snow...and that fault is purely of your own making. It is not, nor has it ever been, like that. It started out far more nefarious than it is today, but it retains its roots.
Diplomacy is a tool of national power, used to achieve national security objectives. It has no anthropomorphic qualities, as you attribute to it.
The US diplomatic corps has not violated international law. It has behaved exactly as the diplomatic corps of every other country on the face of the earth has behaved for decades, if not centuries. The only difference is that all of our business has been "outed" by someone with a hard-on for us. If the tables were turned and Wikileaks had all that information on another country's diplomatic cables, would you be squawking so loudly? Because you would have seen exactly the same kind of information. Guaran-fucking-teed.
The only head that will roll in the US over this is the one that belongs to PFC Manning, who provided the information to Assange. And rightly so.
Those who are "truly informed" on what diplomacy is and what functions it performs are not in the least bit bothered by the content, but by the fact the leaks happened in the first place. Those who are less informed are more upset by the content, because they don't understand the context of what they are reading.
Violation of international laws:
Hillary Clinton was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up.
Duplicity:
US has been supporting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) a Marxist-Leninist rebel organization, in attacks again Turkey (their ally). The PKK was classified by the US State Department as a terrorist organization in 1979.Giving them a bit of support seems to ensure they stay out of the fighting in Iraq or working for Iran.Wiki wrote:
The head of the PKK's militant arm, Murat Karayilan, claimed that Iran attempted to recruit the PKK to attack coalition forces, adding that Kurdish guerrillas had launched a clandestine war in north-western Iran, ambushing Iranian troops.
The UK has also shown support for the PKK, even though it will be listed as a terrorist organisation here as well.
Is it right? No. But it can be the lesser of two evils at times.
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.Ticia wrote:
Always found funny how sex is always the deal breaker when it comes to faithfulness when in fact it probably is the one that means the least when it comes to trust.CapnNismo wrote:
Let me ask you guys this question (this was the result of a convo with a mate of mine the other night): can you have sex with another person while you're in a committed relationship and still be faithful? I.E.: you have absolutely ZERO romantic feelings for the person you are sleeping with (like a one night stand), you're just looking for a bit of quick sexual gratification. Is in in that case cheating? You're still emotionally faithful to the person you are with but for just one sliver of time you're unfaithful physically.
My friend says this is not cheating, I honestly can't make up my mind. Thought it would be an interesting topic, something non-political and non-religious for once.
Try having a a closer bond with someone from the opposite sex (or same if you're gay) doing everything together except intercourse and then tell your partner is not cheating, most will probably won't even care and then get surprised one month later when you leave them.
Where to start?FEOS wrote:
Why do I feel like I'm talking to Dilbert here?Ticia wrote:
Blind faith in my government when you're the one making such poor excuses for yours? See I'm all for the truth, if it embarrasses my government be sure I'll be the first one jumping on them.
Give me the book your diplomats studied from because it must be a nice mix of Le Carre novels and the US Weekly. Your educated argument on this topic is diplomacy is all about duplicity, working contrary to international laws and diplomats who are incapable of a responsible behavior but your government is just doing what it has to do to play with the big bad wolves. With that mentality governments keep treating their citizens as dummies and a true informed democracy in action is nothing but a dream.
But because I give more than 2 cents about Murka I truly hope the leaks will at least make some heads roll.
There's no duplicity or international law breaking. Any allusions to Le Carre or his ilk are all in your head. You have some notion that diplomacy is pure as the driven snow...and that fault is purely of your own making. It is not, nor has it ever been, like that. It started out far more nefarious than it is today, but it retains its roots.
Diplomacy is a tool of national power, used to achieve national security objectives. It has no anthropomorphic qualities, as you attribute to it.
The US diplomatic corps has not violated international law. It has behaved exactly as the diplomatic corps of every other country on the face of the earth has behaved for decades, if not centuries. The only difference is that all of our business has been "outed" by someone with a hard-on for us. If the tables were turned and Wikileaks had all that information on another country's diplomatic cables, would you be squawking so loudly? Because you would have seen exactly the same kind of information. Guaran-fucking-teed.
The only head that will roll in the US over this is the one that belongs to PFC Manning, who provided the information to Assange. And rightly so.
Those who are "truly informed" on what diplomacy is and what functions it performs are not in the least bit bothered by the content, but by the fact the leaks happened in the first place. Those who are less informed are more upset by the content, because they don't understand the context of what they are reading.
Violation of international laws:
Hillary Clinton was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up.
Duplicity:
US has been supporting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) a Marxist-Leninist rebel organization, in attacks again Turkey (their ally). The PKK was classified by the US State Department as a terrorist organization in 1979.
Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for "Sex Without a Condom"
We knew Julian Assagne had an Interpol red notice on him because of sex crimes allegations and now we find out the two women he had sex pressed charges because he refused to use a condom while they were having consensual sex.
Apparently when it comes to rape, consent is not the issue in Sweden, not using a condom is what can take you to court
We knew Julian Assagne had an Interpol red notice on him because of sex crimes allegations and now we find out the two women he had sex pressed charges because he refused to use a condom while they were having consensual sex.
Apparently when it comes to rape, consent is not the issue in Sweden, not using a condom is what can take you to court
Always found funny how sex is always the deal breaker when it comes to faithfulness when in fact it probably is the one that means the least when it comes to trust.CapnNismo wrote:
Let me ask you guys this question (this was the result of a convo with a mate of mine the other night): can you have sex with another person while you're in a committed relationship and still be faithful? I.E.: you have absolutely ZERO romantic feelings for the person you are sleeping with (like a one night stand), you're just looking for a bit of quick sexual gratification. Is in in that case cheating? You're still emotionally faithful to the person you are with but for just one sliver of time you're unfaithful physically.
My friend says this is not cheating, I honestly can't make up my mind. Thought it would be an interesting topic, something non-political and non-religious for once.
Try having a a closer bond with someone from the opposite sex (or same if you're gay) doing everything together except intercourse and then tell your partner is not cheating, most will probably won't even care and then get surprised one month later when you leave them.
Blind faith in my government when you're the one making such poor excuses for yours? See I'm all for the truth, if it embarrasses my government be sure I'll be the first one jumping on them.FEOS wrote:
You know who criticized...and prosecuted...American troops? Americans. More so than anyone else. Your blinders are on. Take them off for a bit, will you?Ticia wrote:
You know who criticized the Australian and British troops? Australia, the UK and every other country. Because time and again Americans don't give a shit about what happens outside of their country, you missed it.11 Bravo wrote:
oh shut it ticia. the problem is people always talk about the US and never their own. THAT is trolling. nobody gave a flying fuck that aussie troops were involved in murders or that brit troops are accused of the same thing the US was in abu ghraib. ya those threads died. good figure. call us ignorant? pfftt shows how clueless you are.
Turq hit the nail on the head earlier. Your blind faith in your own government blinds you to the fact that the kind of stuff you saw in the Wikileaks disclosure happens with every government in the world--to include your own. The fact that your own government was embarrassed collaterally by it--via its own actions--is proof.
For some reason, you refuse to believe that diplomats and diplomacy play this role--interfuckingnationally. Well, guess what? They do, and it does. Read a book on international diplomacy or take a class on it some time--so you can make an educated argument on the topic--rather than blindly flailing about squawking "'Murka's baaad!" It's fucking old.
Give me the book your diplomats studied from because it must be a nice mix of Le Carre novels and the US Weekly. Your educated argument on this topic is diplomacy is all about duplicity, working contrary to international laws and diplomats who are incapable of a responsible behavior but your government is just doing what it has to do to play with the big bad wolves. With that mentality governments keep treating their citizens as dummies and a true informed democracy in action is nothing but a dream.
But because I give more than 2 cents about Murka I truly hope the leaks will at least make some heads roll.