mad4u689

So many people are living in poverty in third world countries, or in some places, genocide and mass murders are being committed. If, as I think you were suggesting in another thread, the US has an obligation to protect freedom, then surely giving aid to these 3rd world countries is the most important thing we can do? The UN (ideally, of course... its current incarnation sucks) provides a means through which all the powerful and unpowerful countries can come together and decide where aid is actually important to give. Unfortunately, it's also pretty much but puppet of the US, not a true democratic representation of the world (except for those moments when it gets all offended and makes some action that's basically a statement "Hey!! We're not a puppet of the US!! See!!" and then goes back to being a puppet).

What you fail to realize is that "the terrorists" are an organization of criminals whose single goal involves creating fear and killing "us". The United States is a government which supposedly promises to protect freedom. Surely this government must be held to higher standards and be "above" this organization of terrorists!! "Hazing some psycho" is a violation of basic human rights. The United States should be above that. The defense and well being of our country is best protected when the United States does not sink to the level of methods of terrorists. If our country becomes worse and less free as a result of trying to protect freedom, was it worth it? We're all so proud of living in America, right? That's because our country has "freedom." That is, we have a great system of laws that protects people's freedoms (thank you, Constitution!), we have a democracy, we have a fair justice system that treats everyone to a fair trial. (Before there were fair trials, governments would just kill "enemies of the state" - that is, whoever they didn't like.) If we compromise our freedom (by allowing the presidential administration to bypass the Constitution or by bypassing our beautiful fair justice system!) we are becoming more and more like the authoritarian governments we are pledging to be better than! I hope you see my point :)

The US education system is fairly varied, which is the problem. Public schools function as a result of LOCAL municipal taxes, which means that richer municipalities can spend more on the schools, and thus have better education. This is an example of embedded classism, where the nature of the institution itself causes the cycle of poverty to repeat itself. Some US schools are fantastic. In general, US schools tend to focus on a broader education than other countries, a tradition I'm very proud of; that is, students don't specialize until later in their education careers. I think this is a good thing, because it forces all students to study all the important subjects (math, english, sciences, history, etc) for longer, providing a broad knowledge base that's incredibly useful in the real world. I went to a public school in a fairly well-off area, and my education was phenomonal. I feel like I learned a lot, and to be honest, I feel quite educated when talking to other people online from other countries :) So don't knock it til you've tried it :D Also, just because a school is more well-off and students get better grades, doesn't mean it's just easier. I had fantastic teachers... but they were actually fantastic teachers. They were inspiring, passionate about their respective subjects, and worked long extra hours. They gave out extra enrichment if we wanted it. I had teachers that held extra optional sessions at the end of year after school that almost everyone attended, because we didn't quite finish all the material during the year, because we covered it in so much detail (this was AP bio; 39/40 students got 5s on the AP test that year). So, the education in America can be fantastic, both public and private, in some institutions. The problem is that it's not as consistent as it should be, and there's very little practical way to get ALL the schools in the country to reach the level of the TOP schools in the country. That is, it would cause an averaging effect if they tried to change the methods of funding public schools, and thus top schools would become worse, which isn't fair either.

I think the UN is great in theory - it's the next step in our increasingly globalist world, a higher sovereign power (like the US federal government was the next step to individual state governments after the American Revolutionary War) that logically takes on a more centralized role in the most universal of legal issues (like basic standards of human rights). In practice, there are a lot of problems with it, and it needs major work. ;D

That's not what I said... or at least not what I meant. I meant that if our justice system is good enough to serve "regular" crimes in America, why not these crimes of terrorism as well? Why is terrorism put on this pedestal? Terrorism is sick, but at the heart of it, it still boils down to murder, and should be dealt with according to our legal standards as such. What happened in Abu Ghraib was pretty horrendous, and also not what I was referring to as torture. It is fairly equivalent to hazing; however, when the hazing is being done by government officials, there's a problem. The government has a higher obligation to standards than ordinary citizens, since they ARE the "protectors." So, while not tortue, it's still a major problem and shouldn't be allowed. However, now they're forcing officials at such prisons to go through training about understanding prison dynamics (such as information about the Stanford Prison Experiment - http://www.prisonexp.com if you're interested, because it's a very interesting experiment, and also interesting in light of your friend's comments), so they're on the right track. Anyway, as for coercively interrogating people - I don't care what the purpose is, it's still wrong for the government to do. The justice system has standards of collecting evidence, and it should be followed. The CIA might or might not - we don't know, because it's top secret, and apparently not even the legislators have to know, which is also a huge problem. However, coercive interrogatoin is a violation of human rights, and even if you're trying to find out information about OTHER PEOPLE, it still doesn't justify torturing this single person without having given them a trial first! I dont' care if they were found in the wargrounds - we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty... where did that one go? And there HAVE been innocent people taken in and later released after undergoing terrible ordeals where their family wasn't even notified about their status. After Nazis were captured after the war, there WERE the Nouremberg trials to try them for war crimes. If you're trying to argue that you kill the Nazis in the middle of war instead of giving them a trial, then I'd be careful about comparing the "War on Terror" to the Second World War, as they're very different. And taking the low road has gotten us to such a better place?

My dorm room :D I like bright colours :D Oh: And yes, that is a balcony you see :D I love my dorm :D

You a such a hippy! If one of your family members was killed by a terrorist youd tihnk differntly. No, I just believe in standards. I mean, yes, I'm a hippie, but if my family member was murdered, I wouldn't support the death penalty and I wouldn't support torture. I believe that we need an objective justice system that deals with each case individually but according to preset standards, thus avoiding unfair bias. These preset standards should include basic decency, i.e. not torturing someone before you even know if they're guilty :\

The issue is that you don't know if this is a person who has really targeted women and children until after you've tortured them for information! They also don't get real trials, so there's no way to find evidence the way the rest of crime is dealt with. Why not? If our justice system is good enough for the rest of the country, why not in this case, too?

Peace, love, turing. A monkey's face and a robot. http://www.theonemillionmasterpiece.com ... ile-533572 Turing Test Intelligence? Peace? Love? Where does it blend? Does intelligence block out love or enable it? One of my great passions :D

hehe, well, most people would be embarrassed to post if they weren't proud of their GPAs :) Then you wind up having a ridiculously high average, and the people with low GPAs feel even worse! :( I'm a sophomore in college.. my GPA from last year was a 3.26 :D

Insane, I believe Mad is much more flexible on her beliefs than what you are saying nihilists are. After all, there's no need to get bipolar and blind to other points of view in order to be a nihilist. Is your understanding on Nihilism sound? Because, technically speaking, a Nihilist doesn't care about anything. If Mad was consistently Nihilistic, then she wouldn't be so passionate about any view whatsoever. Exactly. It is completely impossible to be a practical nihilist. My favourite quote by a nihilist is: "" How can you function in society when there is nothing? It's clearly not possible in the slightest. And thus I don't consider myself a practical nihilist; merely a theoretical one, because when I analyze what I care about and what my beliefs boil down to, it does tend to be nothing. Not hedonism, because that's a formal system too - just no system. Anyway, now I've digressed from my own topic, so... sorry :D

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive? @Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands? These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P Ah... my mind works in fairly strange ways. I'll do my best to explain my general philosophy about morality, both personally and legally. Keep in mind I haven't taken any classes in ethics or political theory (yet), so my ideas aren't as fine-tuned as I'd like them to be. I believe that morality is completely relative from person to person and from culture to culture. I do not believe there is one "right" and "wrong." In fact, I don't even believe there's a scale of right to wrong; I'm fairly nihilist and don't subscribe to any such system. HOWEVER, by the nature of government, it must assume some system of morality as the basis of its legal system. What system of morality should this be? Can it be completely arbitrary? Surely it cannot; the purpose of the government is to regulate its citizens and act as a centralized "leader" for outsiders to speak to representatively. Therefore, the system of morality that a government adopts must reflect the systems of morality that the majority of its citizens agree on. HOWEVER, in something so definite as government, a mere 50% majority doesn't necessarily suffice. The system of morality should be such that it regulates only what directly affects other citizens (and not the single citizen in question). In addition, it's something of a numbers game - if there is a significant proportion of the population that believes Morality X, even if it's only 10% of the population, it should be considered. In this sense, religious and moral minorities must be protected... until two religious/moral attitudes held by citizens come into direct conflict. I'm not going to go on, because this is getting a bit long, and you probably don't care to read all the rest of my specifics - I just want to emphasize again that PERSONALLY OR CULTURALLY, there may be no "right" system of morality, but LEGALLY, there should be, and it should be a system that incorporates all the major beliefs of its citizens, without regulating what affects only the self. Then, internationally and beyond the realm of traditional government, there should be some standards of international basic human rights. I feel that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fantastic basis to go on and very well done. This is a type of government in itself, which is good... it establishes such ideas as no torture. And "no torture" is something most people throughout the world agree on in their various systems of morality. (This is why I am an active member of Amnesty International, a human rights organization, despite disagreeing with some of their ideas and methods of execution of these ideas) THUS: my personal system of morality finds, in my gut, terrorist acts to be "evil" because personally, murder of someone conscious who doesn't desire death is the worst "evil." Consequently, I don't think we should murder THEM in retaliation. However, you must consider "active" and "passive" murder - if killing one person will prevent the deaths of a thousand other people, then yes, it is something you should do. Passive murder is still murder, in my opinion (and personal system of morality). Legally, now, we have to have some standards. To adjust for people's differing views of morality, we need a legal system that has clearcut rules and laws, and allows people to appeal and clarify WITHIN the system. Habeus corpus is a vitally important feature of the American legal system, then! It guarantees that anyone who is accused has the right to appeal, within the legal system! In essence, the American government as it is currently laid out, is balanced by three separate branches. One branch (the administrative) has become particularly powerful as of late, pursuing its own specific agenda and ruining this "balance" that had previously existed. In getting more power, it is consequently TAKING more power from other branches, such as by taking away basic aspects of the judicial branch like the writ of habeus corpus. I am terrible at arguing, but I hope that better serves to explain my position :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5390848.stm I'm curious on thoughts about this article about a recently passed bill. It makes me sick, but I'm curious what other people have to say before ranting my opinion. :) Important edit: tip.it cut off my intended original title. It's very important to me that there is a question mark at the end - I am not saying that the US legalized some torture and overturned the writ of habeus corpus, but trying to prompt a discussion QUESTIONING whether this is or is not the case. So I apologize for the previous title, and hope this new one better suffices!

I always thought of him as a revolutionary, a good person, until I had a Spanish teacher in high school who lived in Cuba as a child and was forced out. This teacher is someone I greatly admire, a really beautiful human being - and the things she told us about what Che did in his country make me sick. There's a very positive vibe about him in our culture today, but he was responsible for the deaths of large numbers of innocent people. Unless you think being born with money makes you automatically guilty... So I hope more people read up on history and analyze critically :D

Awesome, dude :D

What a cool idea for a puzzle :D that said, I'm feeling too lazy :x

Seitan :D WOO vegetarians :D

I suck at dealing with things. I just get really depressed :D Often I'll make a friend cuddle with me and comfort me :P

School was pretty intense today. I had massive problem sets that I'm not finished with, due tomorrow. And I had three classes throughout the day and the professor was mumbling in the morning, and it was tough to pay attention!!

Some political correctness is useful (REALLY, despite it being in vogue to be all "politically incorrect)... this doesn't appear to be of that variety :x

Meth is disgusting. That is what it does to you. :-X (mods, if you feel that it is inappropriate go ahead an remove it) Alright, that's your judgement call. I've chosen not to do meth, myself. However, I still maintain that you should judge for yourself (which includes seeing what your friends do, admittedly!) and not judge other people's actions unnecessarily, if they're happy with it. And that doing meth is not unarguably bad.

Lots of people do meth, and they enjoy it. Meth is unarguabley bad. :P I actually disagree that meth is unarguably bad. It can have dangerous consequences, certainly, including addiction - however, I think that since it primariy affects the individual in question, and not other people negatively, it's not necessarily a bad thing for oneself. There's very little that you can't argue over in the world :D

Yeah, pretty much. I really do sort of follow the philosophy that if a lot of other people are doing it, and enjoying it... it probably isn't so bad. Especially if they're people I respect (like my friends) :D

I don't HATE Bush. I dislike him as a President, but certainly not as a person. I don't want to make this a political thread, but Clinton embodies many aspects of presidency that I feel Bush fails to. PM if you're interested, but I don't want to turn this thread into that. I respect McCain in many of the same ways as Clinton. :D

Bill Clinton, for the way he led the United States House, for being a cynical genius bastard Dusqi, for the way he lives his life My parents, for how well they raised my family (i hope to emulate their example :D) John Marshall (the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice), for being so darn awesome :D