User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 278

  1. #131
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Actually, I read the girl in the case wants the charges dropped, because at this point she's married, 40-something years old, and doesn't feel that there's any benefit for her in prosecuting him for it. They've just refused to do it.
    The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped, saying the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children".
    If she were still under 21, I could see them insisting on it regardless of what she said. If she were demanding he be punished for what he did, I could see it. But at this point, with all these developments, it doesn't make any sense. Especially since the victim feels that they're going to suffer more as a result of it being pursued than leaving it alone. They're basically subjecting the victim to further anguish by pursuing this, and that's what bothers me.

    I personally think that if the victim drops the charges after a certain age, they should just be dropped.

    Justice can be very petty, bureaucratic, and meaningless at times, and I think this is one of those times.

  2. #132
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Not at all, was just clarifying my position too.
    OK, glad to see we weren't misunderstanding each other.

    Yes, I'm with you on using ideology as a cover up for other goals. I think this is especially true of political leaders. Followers, on the other hand, as much evidence shows, follow due to a variety of reasons, including ideology as presented to them by political leaders, falsely presented wrongs by the other however the other is defined, control of resources as well..
    I guess I'm more inclined to think in terms of interest groups rather than at the base grassroots level. You're absolutely right in that regard, but I think we can agree that it's fairly uncommon that the grassroots manifests political power, other than convincing other interest groups of the viability of a candidate.

    My training is in comparative politics, in particular, so I am acutely aware of the problems of translation. Yet, I don't see a problem with people using the terms colloquially as long as they know these terms really only apply to popular politics here. After all, these terms are widely used by political scientists studying American politics here in their work.
    Good to see someone else who can withstand the morass that is the way humans govern themselves! It is very contextual, like you say. Consequently, we'd agree that when you get to levels of pure comparison, it's important to use more precise, universally understood terms, right?

    Actually, many would argue that if you collapsed this myth of a large middle class here, you would have some conflation between socio-economic class and party identification here too. Don't we, in similarly colloquial terms, associate the Republican party with big business (owners of capital) and the Democrats with the working class?
    I don't disagree one bit. However, there's been a shift - notice how populist the Palin rallies were last fall. Certain parts of the country consider the Republicans the party of the hard-working honest man and the Democrats the party of the pointy-headed, ivory tower elitists. It's not as broad a distinction as it might look through the lenses others see this country, which tend to be tinted toward a Northeastern perspective.

    I don't agree with this categorization. Working class still remains wage workers mostly and those associated with traditional occupations that require physical labor and a different skill set than white collar jobs. I don't doubt that they form a large percentage of most societies, yet there is no popular class. We wouldn't have a modern day bourgeoise in this schema! Outside of few jobs, even people at high level positions in corporate America can be fired/laid off by your definition - would they be working class? The middle class is also made up of white collar workers - your salaried professionals. These are people with benefits, let's not forget! This middle class has very different needs and political goals than the working class.
    We don't have a bourgeoisie in the white collar class, outside of upper management. What we do have is a debt-soaked "haute proletariat", that is, they sell more than just their labor-power, but don't own their necessities of existence (such as the mortgaged house). A salaried worker would be swamped by debts within a few months without working, whereas an upper manager or successful small business owner (petite bourgeoisie) would have enough reserves to maintain the same standard of living for a fair amount of time without the debt load of the aforementioned.

    The main difference is that very standard of living. Other than that, the power dynamic between them and their employers is exactly that of the working class.

    Sure, bureaucracy certainly is an important institutional structure and could be more efficient or inefficient depending on the country. What appeals to xenophobes is not the stress on bureaucracy but the anti-immigrant rhetoric and similar for the unemployed who are also told its the immigrants taking their jobs. A stress on authoritarianism, using the bureaucracy as well as the military is the more recent form of fascism since WW II. A militarist single party state. This latter form is what far right parties adhere too - see Le Pen in France or the Austrian Haider, not a stress on an efficient bureaucracy as seen in traditional fascism.
    I think we are saying the same thing, but from different angles. What the xenophobic and unemployed populace wants more than anything is order and regularity. The "others" are an easy scapegoat for the perceived disorder, as they disrupt the ethnic homogeneity through their sheer presence. Authoritarianism isn't necessary if the desired order can be implemented through democratic means, usually by restricting access to political processes.

    Once again, it is important to distinguish fascism from populism.

    Will finish later, have to catch a train

  3. #133
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    I suspect my organs would hasten the demise of these 10 lucky people.

    Your scenario is of course not Pereto Efficient.

    Like when you're delivering pizzas 'round to Jaguar and the local kids beat you up and steal the pizza. Each gets a piece of the pizza you are delivering to Jag. Each of these feckless teenagers would say, "Beating that numpty simulatedworld to a pulp is for the general good."

    I would tend to agree.
    You didn't answer the question.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #134
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I guess I'm more inclined to think in terms of interest groups rather than at the base grassroots level.
    The thing about "interests groups" is that each individual may belong to or identify with several competing interests groups, all at the same time. Interests groups are highly fluid and dispersed, and in large part depend on the subjective perception and priorities of the individual. Even if you're talking about something like the "unholy trinity" in the political economy, people with the same income or even the same job will often disagree concerning whether higher inflation or higher unemployment is preferable.

  5. #135
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Well that does it then.

    Wildcat, I hereby knight thee an INFP.
    And I hereby knight thee Vladimir Putin, the Czar of Russia.

  6. #136
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    [Copied post from similar thread on INTPCentral]

    I didn't know anything about Roman Polankski until today -- the name was familiar but I couldn't have told you who he was.

    After reading a few articles from around the web, I think this one by Kate Harding at Salon.com captures my feelings well. Here is the first paragraph:

    Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #137
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You didn't answer the question.
    Of course not. Because it was not worth answering.

  8. #138
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Of course not. Because it was not worth answering.
    My point was that "it's more beneficial to society to let him go cuz people like his movies" is not a reasonable justification for letting him off the hook.

    You've taken a very utilitarian stance here and so I offered a common response to utilitarianism.

    I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point here?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I personally think that if the victim drops the charges after a certain age, they should just be dropped.
    The flaw in your theory is that it ignores the fact that criminal prosecutions serve as a deterrent as well as a punishment. If we were to do what you say and only charge people with crimes when the victim feels the need for it, then it becomes the victim's decision. And that leads to people (the perpetrator) attempting to influence the victim's decision. Probably in the form of "If you have me prosecuted, I will kill you." When the decision to charge someone with a crime is uniform and left in the hands of the authorities, there is no reason to target the victim.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  10. #140
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    My point was that "it's more beneficial to society to let him go cuz people like his movies" is not a reasonable justification for letting him off the hook.

    You've taken a very utilitarian stance here and so I offered a common response to utilitarianism.

    I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point here?
    I have no point.

Similar Threads

  1. Over- and underconcentration
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 07:58 PM
  2. ENFP, over here!
    By Hexis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 06:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO