Re: the elephant in the room

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:20 pm

bw wrote:

Are you saying that the "compassionate, saintly, one-of-a-kind" president has no accountability or responsibility for this just because he didn't take a gun and shoot at them directly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the
sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the
horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring.

Well, it is a well established fact that U.S puts a lot of premium on their citizens lives and diddly-squat on other citizens of the globe; To your point, one can pick and choose and blame current president for drone attacks; I'd blame America as a nation responsible for these atrocities. A lunatic labeled 9/11, as War on America and 100s of millions of lunatics jumped on the bandwagon, and approved war as a justification. We're seeing the consequences of it.

Are you aware of the fact that in Laos, Cambodia etc., after 40+ years of Vietnam war; unexploded clustered bombs pose serious threat to the lives of their citizens; kids get killed regularly for innocently picking them up from play grounds, their farms are mine fields littered with clustered bombs and yet , if I'm not mistaken, clustered bombs were dropped by the U.S and U.K (eh! mention this to Guardian) in Iraq.

by Propagandhi711 Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:01 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:

Are you saying that the "compassionate, saintly, one-of-a-kind" president has no accountability or responsibility for this just because he didn't take a gun and shoot at them directly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the
sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the
horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring.

Well, it is a well established fact that U.S puts a lot of premium on their citizens lives and diddly-squat on other citizens of the globe; To your point, one can pick and choose and blame current president for drone attacks; I'd blame America as a nation responsible for these atrocities. A lunatic labeled 9/11, as War on America and 100s of millions of lunatics jumped on the bandwagon, and approved war as a justification. We're seeing the consequences of it.

Are you aware of the fact that in Laos, Cambodia etc., after 40+ years of Vietnam war; unexploded clustered bombs pose serious threat to the lives of their citizens; kids get killed regularly for innocently picking them up from play grounds, their farms are mine fields littered with clustered bombs and yet , if I'm not mistaken, clustered bombs were dropped by the U.S and U.K (eh! mention this to Guardian) in Iraq.

Buddy, you are a confused, confused man capable of some wild flights of non correlated arguments. My first response when I read your point-counterpoints is uh, what? Followed by whatever you say, man. Just wanted to let you know

by Propagandhi711 Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:12 pm

panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I suppose it must be very decent knowing any two of your former enemies can gang up and outclass you.
You are ignoring the numbers. Even if all the next 20 largest spenders gang up against you -- mind you, many of those 20 are NATO members and very close allies -- they would still not be spending as much as the US does.

Obama's drone program is part of the same problem.

Agree...drones violate the first principle codified into the constitution of utopiastan that thou shall only fight evenly matched opponents.

Ps: it's also that the same kvetchers over us military might wants America to arm and yes, fight on behalf of the Arabs rebels and others elsewhere. They want America to play the poodle until they want the pit bull when their own pet interests are threatened.

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:45 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Buddy, you are a confused, confused man capable of some wild flights of non correlated arguments. My first response when I read your point-counterpoints is uh, what? Followed by whatever you say, man. Just wanted to let you know

All I can say is, read the thread in its entirety and understand the context before bestowing your pearls of wisdom on me.

by bw Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:26 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:

Are you saying that the "compassionate, saintly, one-of-a-kind" president has no accountability or responsibility for this just because he didn't take a gun and shoot at them directly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the
sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the
horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring.

Well, it is a well established fact that U.S puts a lot of premium on their citizens lives and diddly-squat on other citizens of the globe; To your point, one can pick and choose and blame current president for drone attacks; I'd blame America as a nation responsible for these atrocities. A lunatic labeled 9/11, as War on America and 100s of millions of lunatics jumped on the bandwagon, and approved war as a justification. We're seeing the consequences of it.

Are you aware of the fact that in Laos, Cambodia etc., after 40+ years of Vietnam war; unexploded clustered bombs pose serious threat to the lives of their citizens; kids get killed regularly for innocently picking them up from play grounds, their farms are mine fields littered with clustered bombs and yet , if I'm not mistaken, clustered bombs were dropped by the U.S and U.K (eh! mention this to Guardian) in Iraq.

US as a country and obama as its current president deserve to be called out. obama hasn't done anything more "compassionate" than the previous presidents when it comes to the foreign policy. if anything, he has expanded the drone attacks. both parties are pretty similar in their views in most important matters, the soap opera of the elections notwithstanding.

uk has almost always been us's poodle and i don't see the relevance of that reference.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:59 pm

bw wrote:

US as a country and obama as its current president deserve to be called out.

our record abroad is nothing to be proud of, i agree. but i do have to point out as you have done for northindians in the other thread, that there are many americans who don't agree with the wars their country is fighting abroad and want nothing to do with guns or violence.

by bw Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:10 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:

US as a country and obama as its current president deserve to be called out.

our record abroad is nothing to be proud of, i agree. but i do have to point out as you have done for northindians in the other thread, that there are many americans who don't agree with the wars their country is fighting abroad and want nothing to do with guns or violence.

i am aware of that and also aware why you are pointing it out now - i still maintain that there is a huge difference between calling out a country on its foreign policies and a certain segment of the population on their "values". the individuals, their race, their religious beliefs, their culture isn't the target here but a country run by different people from different backgrounds but with a common political agenda wrt the rest of the world that isn't exactly palatable to many.

do you agree that calling "north indians" a vile culture is akin to calling the blacks or jews or muslims vile? if not, what's the difference?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:24 am

i don't remember saying northindian culture is a vile culture. i said that there is a cultural problem of debasement of women in northindia. i don't remember using the word vile.

by bw Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:37 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't remember saying northindian culture is a vile culture. i said that there is a cultural problem of debasement of women in northindia. i don't remember using the word vile.

ok - let's forget "vile".

my point is that there is a difference between slamming a country for its policies and slamming a specific sub-culture. US has been playing big bully to the world with no accountability and yes, the stress on violence and "with us or against us" propaganda does affect the mindset of the people - it has nothing to do with their cultural or regional affiliations.

going back to my question, is your criticism of north indians different from the kind of accusations thrown towards muslims or blacks or jews? if not, please help me understand the difference.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:48 am

why is it different? are you drawing a distinction between the US and americans? i didn't think you were. you are drawing conclusions about a people from their behavior in the aggregate -- in this case electing politicians who sanction wars abroad. i am also drawing conclusions about the value system of a people by their behavior in the aggregate. in this case i am using the sex ratio in haryana, delhi, and chandigarh as a quantitative measure of the value they place on a female human being.

you are trying to make a huge deal about country and sub-culture. it's just a matter of scale. we are both drawing specific conclusions from aggregate behavior.

by bw Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:11 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why is it different? are you drawing a distinction between the US and americans? i didn't think you were. you are drawing conclusions about a people from their behavior in the aggregate -- in this case electing politicians who sanction wars abroad. i am also drawing conclusions about the value system of a people by their behavior in the aggregate. in this case i am using the sex ratio in haryana, delhi, and chandigarh as a quantitative measure of the value they place on a female human being.

you are trying to make a huge deal about country and sub-culture. it's just a matter of scale. we are both drawing specific conclusions from aggregate behavior.

are you telling me that you treat the statements "US is a big bully and fosters a violent culture by waging needless wars" and "blacks have a high rape rate and so their culture encourages debasement of women" the same?

the kind of criticism i make can be made in front on anyone, including the americans, without being called a bigot. i don't think it takes a whole lot of courage to do it and is a pretty common criticism that several americans themselves write about. the latter statement will offend people and result in one being labelled a bigot.

anyway, i think i have made my point and let's agree to disagree on this if you still think my criticism of the us policies is the same as your classification of the north indian culture.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:30 am

i don't understand this unwarranted conflating of an unrelated issue with this one, namely african americans and crime. there has always been a healthy debate and open discussion of this issue in the american media. i can point you to any number or sources. black americans receive disproportionate punishment for similar crimes and so crime statistics are always going to show them in a poor light. this is well documented. how is this in any way shape or form comparable to sex ratios in haryana, chandigarh, delhi, and punjab and why have you suddenly introduced this red herring in the conversation?

by Hellsangel Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:16 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: how is this in any way shape or form comparable to sex ratios in haryana, chandigarh, delhi, and punjab and why have you suddenly introduced this red herring in the conversation?

It is very hard for a bigot to see himself as a bigot. All other analogies are bound to become red herrings for him.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:22 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: how is this in any way shape or form comparable to sex ratios in haryana, chandigarh, delhi, and punjab and why have you suddenly introduced this red herring in the conversation?
It is very hard for a bigot to see himself as a bigot. All other analogies are bound to become red herrings for him.

The biggest bigot is someone who is intolerant of the views and opinions of other people.

by Rishi Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:24 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:

US as a country and obama as its current president deserve to be called out.

our record abroad is nothing to be proud of, i agree. but i do have to point out as you have done for northindians in the other thread, that there are many americans who don't agree with the wars their country is fighting abroad and want nothing to do with guns or violence.

What does this "our record" imply?

Why this patriotic fervor towards America when you are a citizen of India?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:42 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: how is this in any way shape or form comparable to sex ratios in haryana, chandigarh, delhi, and punjab and why have you suddenly introduced this red herring in the conversation?
It is very hard for a bigot to see himself as a bigot. All other analogies are bound to become red herrings for him.

a bigot is someone who makes decisions about individuals based on his perceptions about the group the individual may belong to.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:42 am

Rishi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:

US as a country and obama as its current president deserve to be called out.

our record abroad is nothing to be proud of, i agree. but i do have to point out as you have done for northindians in the other thread, that there are many americans who don't agree with the wars their country is fighting abroad and want nothing to do with guns or violence.

What does this "our record" imply?

Why this patriotic fervor towards America when you are a citizen of India?

got up on the wrong side of the bed did you?

by Hellsangel Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:48 am

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:58 am

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

a) are you saying that i am intolerantly devoted to my opinions or prejudice? let's discuss that. i hold strong opinions about this particular issue, i.e. cultural factors at play in explaining the high numbers of rape in haryana, chandigarh and punjab. i am hardly the first person to hold such views. or is it the fact that i am a southern indian holding such an opinion that is problematic? here is a quote from an op-ed from the hindu today by prof ratna kapur (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece):

The grooming of young men to have a feeling of entitlement by Indian parents breeds a sense of masculinity and male privilege. Son preference simultaneously erodes the possibility of respect for women, as girls are seen as unwanted or burdensome.

she identified son preference and the viewing of girls as a burden as a causal cultural factor in these incidents. i posit that we can take the sex ratio, or more acurately sex ratio at birth as a metric for son preference. do you disagree?

b) i don't ever remember treating anyone on an online group anonymously or in person with hatred and intolerance because of their membership in a racial or ethnic group.

there is a larger scale bigotry that is not getting much discussion here -- the one against the living and the unborn women of haryana, chandigarh, delhi, and punjab.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:26 pm

Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:32 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that. it couldn't be in their genes or blood. the greatest contemporary indian novelist writing in english is northindian. no scratch that. the greatest contemporary novelist writing in english is northindian.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that.

Oh but I do. In early 2008. In some holi related thread. Sadly, that's my first impression of you. I was new to sulekha and remember flipping out on you.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:40 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that.

Oh but I do. In early 2008. In some holi related thread. Sadly, that's my first impression of you. I was new to sulekha and remember flipping out on you.

nope. still doesn't ring a bell. are you going to make this about me or do you have anything useful to contribute to the current discussion?

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:48 pm

The side discussion was on your bigot views and your inability to understand bw's argument. And it doesn't matter if it (ie what I said) rings a bell for you or not. You very well know what you think. So do we.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:53 pm

i understood bw's argument just fine. i just don't agree with it for the reasons i stated. we are all amateurs here. but there are lots of experts writing on this issue, many who are northindian, who work for non profit and governmental agencies who are pretty much saying the same thing i am. i have to conclude that the rather violent (figuratively that is) reaction to my posts here stem from my own ethnicity.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:36 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that. it couldn't be in their genes or blood. the greatest contemporary indian novelist writing in english is northindian. no scratch that. the greatest contemporary novelist writing in english is northindian.

Do you spell the word as "northindian" to indicate your contempt for all North Indians?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that. it couldn't be in their genes or blood. the greatest contemporary indian novelist writing in english is northindian. no scratch that. the greatest contemporary novelist writing in english is northindian.

Do you use the word "northindian" to indicate your contempt for all North Indians?

no.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Max. You once said, maybe not with hatred, that bad English is in northinidans' genes/blood. What was that coming from?

i don't remember saying anything like that. it couldn't be in their genes or blood. the greatest contemporary indian novelist writing in english is northindian. no scratch that. the greatest contemporary novelist writing in english is northindian.

Do you use the word "northindian" to indicate your contempt for all North Indians?

no.

Do you spell the word as "northindian" because you think that would annoy and irritate North Indians ?

What do you hope to accomplish by using the word "northindian".

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
What do you hope to accomplish by using the word "northindian".

i did not coin the word, flim flam at sulekha did. i am not sure of his context. but i find it useful as an exact analog of the way northindians refer to southern indians. saooothhindian -- all one word, heavy exhalation at the h.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:53 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
What do you hope to accomplish by using the word "northindian".

i did not coin the word, flim flam at sulekha did. i am not sure of his context. but i find it useful as an exact analog of the way northindians refer to southern indians. saooothhindian -- all one word, heavy exhalation at the h.

Do you think it would wiser to request North Indians to use the words southern Indians instead ? I have an aunt who I have heard referring to South Indians as "madrasis". I found it annoying and thought of correcting her but the desisted because she is much older than me and I did not want to come across as impertinent. I understand that she has some SI friends and it is for them to either correct her or be accepting of the word Madrasi.

My aunt is very fond of her SI friends and I think the reason she continues using the word is because of her ignorance and not because of any chauvinism.

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
What do you hope to accomplish by using the word "northindian".

i did not coin the word, flim flam at sulekha did. i am not sure of his context. but i find it useful as an exact analog of the way northindians refer to southern indians. saooothhindian -- all one word, heavy exhalation at the h.

Do you think it would wiser to request North Indians to use the words southern Indians instead ? I have an aunt who I have heard referring to South Indians as "madrasis". I found it annoying and thought of correcting her but the desisted because she is much older than me and I did not want to come across as impertinent. I understand that she has some SI friends and it is for them to either correct her or be accepting of the word Madrasi.

My aunt is very fond of her SI friends and I think the reason she continues using the word is because of her ignorance and not because of any chauvinism.

Also you may not like the term "South Indian" but other southerners are perfectly fine using it:

http://www.amazon.com/An-Encyclopaedia-South-Indian-Culture/dp/0836411889

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:53 pm

A bigot doesn't see himself as a bigot while it's so crystal clear to everyone else around. He's been proving himself to be one over the past few years.
I believe he is a professor. A professor can make or break a student's life/career. I've always wondered about any north indian students he has had/have. I feel bad for them.

by Rishi Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:42 pm

http://truthdive.com/2012/08/01/madurai-kk-hospital-doctor-held-for-raping-school-girl.html

North or south, east or west, educated or uneducated, rich or poor, evil people is bound to be there all over the world.

by Hellsangel Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:37 pm

By the way if a woman has the right to choose, should she be allowed to abort a foetus based on sex?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:37 am

Hellsangel wrote:By the way if a woman has the right to choose, should she be allowed to abort a foetus based on sex?

good question. this is the sort of question that will keep medical ethicists awake at night. my opinion -- in a country like india, unless there is a medical reason for the parents to know the sex of the embryo, it should not be disclosed to them. i am not sure, but isn't this already the law? of course there is no way to prevent a woman from going abroad where this is legal and follow through with what she wants to do.

by Nila Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:07 am

Ayyo Da! Naama Yellorum "Padam Katuvanga Padam Katuvangannu Kelvi pattiriKKirom Anna Entha Periyavar Padathodu Paatum KataRar"

Naan yella sutha waste.
ThangaMudiyaLa....

by Sponsored content