mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: abcxyz
User Name: abcxyz
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Female
Joined: Friday, November 13, 2009
Last Visit: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:25:31 AM
Number of Posts: 1,056
[0.10% of all post / 0.23 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Friends reading friends' emails
Posted: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:21:35 AM
Romany wrote:
Hey, we're OP? So far, I have only heard people from the USA saying they see nothing wrong with it, or that those who oppose it are protesting too much, or that shucks, everybody does it.

Out of sheer curiosity I would like to see how many posters from countries outside the States share that opinion?

Often in this forum I have seen commenters from various countries, including myself, posting about US drone strikes, armtwisting military deals, embargoes on countries that dared defy the US interests, military interventions and such topics, and the majority of the responders here felt that military interventions were all 'good intentioned' but only somehow some interventions went wrong, drone strikes prevented terrorist attacks yet the thousands of drone death of civilians is somehow not terrifying, the embargoes that deprive people of necessities including food and medicines (anything more than the very basic isn't even thought as a necessity) are somehow necessary to prevent terrorism.

We who fail to comprehend the rationale find the idea of the US as the world's policeperson terrifying, and why wouldn't we, because what mechanism, what democratic process appoints them as such? How do we ensure that it's the interest of the world population, not some economic and political elites, that are being represented by the US government? But what's more appalling is that there are so many takers of the idea of the US policing the world among the common masses. They're so afraid, so mistaken about the aspirations of the common people outside the US, which are probably not that much different from their own.
Topic: A Sad Day for Justice, Zimmerman Aquitted.
Posted: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:34:00 PM
My fb account shows a lot of updates on the issue from people and pages in the US, and a lot of people are clearly upset by it. So thought I'd check how the mood is here.

What I know about it is pretty much what Dragonspeaker has summed up. Based on that I'm having a hard time making sense of this comment: "I am curious how you know Zimmerman assumed wrong. All facts, all evidence shows that Zimmerman had every reason to be concerned."

And the constant reminder of the fact that we cannot be 100% sure of what happened, and the strange assumption that we must not act unless we're 100% certain - from Peter.

We are not 100% sure about anything, it's freaking IMPOSSIBLE to be. Any deduction presupposes something - we call it assumption. Our theories of laws of nature have assumptions as their basis. Does this mean engineers shouldn't act on ANY of the assumptions - the laws of physics, when there is a REASONABLE degree of certainty?

Whereas it is absolutely true that social scenarios such as this are extremely complicated, and with lives at stake we must take extreme care in our theorizing of social scenarios, I'm quite at a loss as to how Peter dismisses any attempt by Epiphileon and others to understand how the judicial system worked in this case. If people stopped scrutinizing what goes on in the institutions of the society, then institutional authoritarianism rules. That doesn't help democracy in any way. I also fail to see how such scrutiny necessarily leads to "lynch mobs".

Also, attempts to decry any civil action as 'lynch mobs' are pretty alarming. Wouldn't you have liked to see the masses intervene when fascism was institutionalized in Germany? Wouldn't you like to see civil actions where there strongly seems to be a denial of justice? This is not to support every mass action, but there is no reason to oppose mass action ITSELF.

I'm also quite surprised how Epiphileon declared the assault on Trayvon 'not racial', how he could be certain of that to a reasonable degree is something I (and judging by social media reactions, a lot of others) would like to know. While he may well be true in his assessment, I would like to know what parts of a crisp eating, young black boy in a hoodie could look like thug to Zimmerman, what was instrumental in forming that association, and why such associations were accepted in a court of law as a LEGITIMATE DEFENCE, when it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Trayvon was the one followed. One also wonders how it's legitimate for people to shoot and kill suspects, even those one gets into a fistfight with, seeing Zimmerman didn't shoot him in the leg or anywhere it could have been non-lethal. Because if there's a law allowing such use of excessive force, then people must try to get the law changed.
Topic: Margaret Thatcher had it right
Posted: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:16:32 PM
excaelis wrote:
Thank goodness. Hope, you're a voice of reason in this Communist nightmare in which we live. If the poor can't afford watered down chemo drugs all they have to do is get better jobs. Why are they complaining ? I don't understand how anyone couldn't live a rich, fulfilling family life on the ( frankly exorbitant ) minimum wage currently offered by the wonderful corporations whose boards work so hard to provide employment for us peasants. We are so stupid. If we only saved our money, rather than wasting it on frivolities like food and clothing for our families, and employed good accountants, we too could dodge our tax obligations and retire to the Cayman Islands. You're right. Why hassle BP for their environmental record ? Good grief, they were only trying to guarantee jobs for working families ( recognise that one, Mr. Harper ?) while they turned the planet into a giant tailings pond.

Yup, seriously. I don't see what's all the whining about. Only a couple of days back a building declared unsafe collapsed in Bangladesh killing 250 workers. Those unprofessional workers had been told by the management if they didn't work, they wouldn't get a month's wage. See, even a free burial can't make people happy these days. Why don't people understand that business-people have our best interest in mind?
Topic: I want to know about Indian Politics !!
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:35:03 AM
Hi kklol, if you could be more specific then we might be of use to you. I'm guessing you're asking this in context of the Shahbag protests and India's reaction to that, wanting to know what's what in contemporary Indian politics?
Topic: Equal rights between men and women
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:19:20 AM
ClubFavolosa wrote:
Well put, Tovarish. Perhaps they are ashamed?

FYI: The trial of the rapists will be next Tuesday. Let's hope justice will be done properly.

As for me, I was busy with a whole bunch of other people taking to the streets campaigning against rape and patriarchy. At that time it didn't occur to me to visit this forum.
Topic: What's wrong with capital punishment?
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:01:07 PM
Luftmarque wrote:
abcxyz wrote:

This argument of yours can actually be used in favor of the deterrent argument - because a rational cost-benefit analysis would prevent murders from happening, people do not normally commit murders. They commit murders and tortures when they know that there would be no consequences, your footnote provides examples.

Only if you have not understood the argument. I hope you don't believe that the only thing keeping average Joe or Jill Citizen from committing murder is a cost-benefit analysis. That would not be a species to which I would want to belong.

A cost-benefit analysis may include a lot of aspects than one may imagine. It does not mean remove all laws and murders would happen over a penny. Other social considerations, general welfare in which an individual feels secure also feature in the cost-benefit analysis. And let's not forget, there are plenty of examples of people killing each other over resources.

There are very few assumptions that I have about the species I belong to, and this species still continues to surprise me. So no, I don't have a set of human behavior axioms yet.
Topic: What's wrong with capital punishment?
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:29:08 PM
Luftmarque wrote:
Any deterrent effect, in general, presupposes that the potential killer is in a state of mind such as to permit a rational analysis of the consequences of his actions. The only people I can think of who would habitually make a cost/benefit estimation of a murder they were contemplating are professional hired killers, "hit-men." They are in a good position to know both the benefits (money) and costs (likelihood of getting caught, likely punishment if caught, remorse if any) of the act.

But most murders, most violence of any kind, does not result from a logical decision† but is done in the heat of the moment, from a lower, instinctive level of action, when differing levels of punishment for the crime are the farthest thing from the perpetrator's consciousness. Besides which, most people have a higher opinion of their ability to "not get caught" than is warranted, which makes the question of how bad the punishment is that they don't expect to receive moot.

† With the notable, and more disgusting for that, exceptions of deliberate policies of torture, rape, murder adopted by governments and groups.

This argument of yours can actually be used in favor of the deterrent argument - because a rational cost-benefit analysis would prevent murders from happening, people do not normally commit murders. They commit murders and tortures when they know that there would be no consequences, your footnote provides examples.

The deterrent part may be the fear of death or the pain involved in the punishment process... or for some people there may not be anything deterrent about capital punishment at all, IDK if we could frame a general rule consistent to a reasonable degree about this.
Topic: What's wrong with capital punishment?
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2013 5:11:08 AM
There are several levels of moral and factual considerations here.
- Why death sentence?
1. Deterrent: based on the idea of reducing crimes. For the majority, effective deliverance of punishment does seem to work as a deterrent. However, one may argue whether such forms of deterrents should be employed or not.
2. Vengeance: compelling arguments exist whether this emotion should be catered to or not.

If one accepts death sentence, there is still concern as to the fallibility of the system in convicting the criminal(even if we leave other concerns like what constitutes a crime deserving of death and how that death should be delivered). Here the argument about a bigger no. of lives being saved by death penalty than the legal system would kill arises, assuming the moral stand that for the majority's sake, a minority can be killed. Even if one establishes this by logic and statistics both, that would still not tell us whether some other changes in the system would have provided much better results which would have made death penalty useless, whether more energy directed towards that would be more economical in terms of a function of time and lives etc.

As for me, I'm yet to take a stand on this question.
Topic: A quick answer would be very appreciated - anchor flag
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:18:02 PM
I think you have hit on it, DS! Thank you both for your help :)
Topic: A quick answer would be very appreciated - anchor flag
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:28:46 PM
Actually, I was given no context, just the phrase. Googling I found a forum discussion which connects anchor flags to anchors, but that's all I got, sadly.