http://desicritics.org/ Superior South Asian bloggers on Culture, Media, Politics, Sport, Business, and Technology. en Copyright 2006 by the authors Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:18:40 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss BC custom software http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212602 yeah ergo, I will have the last word. I think it's funny you thing *I* am ill equipped to handle your pseudo-intellectual comments. you are a 25 year old who needs to stop being so arrogant and offensive and realize that just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them stupid. or a fascist. what Ruvy was saying is that I would know the impacts of fascism. I have seen it. my family has lived it. you just read about it in your little textbooks then climb on your soapbox and lecture away. I don't give two shits about your *PRINCIPLES* and how you APPLIED them. You don't listen to others and you denigrate them when they do not agree with your regurgitated college syllabus "knowledge" Ergo, you don't know jack-all. I might not know a lot, but at least I know when not to be wildly offensive and a condescending @^#&@(#*&(@*#&)(*@#@@. grow up. 212602@desicritics.org Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:18:40 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212596 I think it's utterly stupid--and a sign of intellectual weakness--to claim that someone who has lived in Italy or is Italian should know fascism best. That is as naive as saying only Americans know best what free market economy is. This line of argument is such utter rubbish because not only does it invalidate the possibility of having an educated view of a matter, it also assumes that all knowledge is splintered into private domains of national boundaries or some such factor. Ruvy in Jerusalem seems to think that unless you are not an Italian, you could not know the essence of fascism as well as a real Italian would. So, why do researchers and scholars even bother studying anything from another culture, society, or philosophy? It would clearly be futile because unless it's their own culture, they would never be good at understanding it! You see how stupid this sounds?? And smallsquirrel, indeed, it is because I understand fascism so well, I can notice its traces in your behavior, and hence my most vocal condemnation of your act. It is a disgusting act, especially given that you are Italian. I would have expected you to at least know what behaviors to avoid--given your country's history. And with regard to some vague and foggy dissection of Randian idealism and your variety of "realism," let me tell you that Objectivism recognizes no dichotomy between principles and reality. In fact, the only way to efficiently handle reality is to think in principles. If you re-read my comments above, you will note how I used *principles* applied to the CONCRETE reality of your actions and CONDEMNED you based on those principles. And I pointed out, in REALISTIC TERMS, why your actions are wrong, immoral, and fascist. I just believe you are ill-equipped--intellectually--to respond to my comments. Hence, this is the last comment here that I care to write. You can have the last word. 212596@desicritics.org Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:02:37 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212593 thanks deepti and aspi... this is what I was getting at. sometimes you just do not know how else to say what you mean. 212593@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:20:11 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212457 I think I agree with Deepti. Do we let something go by that we patently believe to be unfair but is still "legal"? I can think of a number of patriarchal practices that would still be in place if we had sat quietly because there was no law against them at that time. Its a fine line we walk because that same argument can be used to accomplish a number of things by others that I would find undesirable. Everything is subjective - even the more precise things we know about like Math :) 212457@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:23:08 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212348 How is beef connected to a man leaching at a naked child? Sati is an unacceptable act but some people might see its abolition an infringement of their religious rights but do we as a society let such abhorrent practices take place? Crimes against children cannot be accepted by any civilized society. Excuses such as cultural infringement make weak arguments. 212348@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:47:04 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212347 here are the ages after 1960, going steadily up, though for the _average_ age to be 19, I think might still mean there are some under 18 yr olds getting married. maybe not. 1961-65 22.3 16.3 1971 22.6 17.7 1981 23.4 18.6 1991 24 19 Wonder if it'll ever change and the avg age for women will be older than that for men. I think the definition of 'underage' changes over time and in different cultures. 212347@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:42:11 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212346 thanks Ruvy. I think people throw around terms and they have not a clue what they mean outside a textbook. Many of my relatives were killed by Mussolini's men, and Italy suffered a lot under that regime. My family hid in caves, like many other families did. It was a terrible time. But to people like Ergo, who only have experienced the world on a philosophical level, it's fine to bandy about these terms because they are just as abstract as everything else. For my family, like many others, terms like Nazism and Fascism had real implications. that is why I did not really reply to ergo's comments. everything he says is based in some ayn rand-inspired haze of idealism. I do not know a lot of things. but I have lived long enough to know that the kind of absolutism that he spouts simply doesn't pan out in real life. 212346@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:15:04 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212344 Ergo, Sorry, I forgot my main point: my fingers raced ahead of my brain (or perhaps it was the other way round). Your conclusion at the end of comment #45 is just plain wrong. 212344@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:57:47 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212342 Boy ergo, that #45 was one mouthful of a comment. But your conclusion, "thus, smallsquirrel, you are not any different from the coercive, paternalistic, fascist governments of the world." Smallsquirrel is just one woman, supported by no paid off judges, jackbooted goons or propaganda apparatus that supports the typical Fascist regime. And a reminder before throwing the word "fascist" around. Smallsquirrel was born in Italy, and if anybody knows what fascism and fascists really are on this site, it is she. 212342@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:55:20 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212333 debbieann... I find your assertions seriously disturbing. if you had a female child, you would be fine if at 15 that girl was married to a 30 year old man???? yes, I believe that any man who has sex with (or marries) and underage child is a pedophile. 212333@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:32:43 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212321 I do think those men who marry children are pedophiles - no two ways about it BTW, do you have more recent data than 1960? 212321@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:14:35 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212311 so would you say all those men who get married to 14 yr olds and 15 yr olds are pedophiles? Average Age at Marriage - India Year Men Women Prior to 1951 20 13 1951-55 21.3 14.3 1956-60 21.2 15.1 the conservative Muslims that want to lower the marriage age - they are pedophiles too? I am happy to see the average age going up, and happy the law now says 18, but I don't think those men are pedophiles. As for the law in intl airspace I would take the flight attendants actions to be a clue. 212311@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:59:20 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212269 * I meant sexually charged, not changed 212269@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 05:26:23 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212268 I will repeat to you what I said to ergo. while that magazine might have been legal in japan (and I am not sure it was) I am not sure how that is governed in international airspace, and I am sure that showing that materials to minors is probably not legal. I do not know what I would have done had there not been children on the plane, because that was not the situation I was in. Do I think that people who look at sexually changed pictures of children (no matter the actual age of the model) are pedophiles? Yes, I suppose at the end of the day I do. These were not some artsy black and whites that fall into the gray area. These were kids with their legs splayed showing their genitals wide open or bending over in "come do me" poses. So yes, I think that people who feel the need to get gratification from viewing disgusting sexualized images of children are pedophiles. 212268@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 05:25:52 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212259 I do not think that child porn is ok because kids look at kids naked all the time - now you are the one twisting an argument in one case to fit something larger. The point was in this case you did what you did because of what you believe, not because of some children - just own it. It seems clear it was you that thought what he was doing was wrong. If there had been no kids on the plane would it have been just fine? I think if _in Japan_ that porn is legal, and Japanese law says that it is acceptable, then I would not have a problem with it. If that magazine is illegal in Japan, then it should be confiscated. I am willing to make some adjustments for the culture I am in - so here in India I don't kiss in public or hold hands (ok except when crossing the street) not because it matches what I believe at all, but because that is the standard here. If I were in Japan I would try to fit in. I wouldn't buy that porn, I am not interested in it, but if I saw a man reading it on the subway and nobody else was throwing a fit then I certainly would not be. so if you consider that approval, then yeah. In the US models have to be over 18 for porn, so I go by that std when in the US - if some other country said 25 was the age limit then I'd support that law there. In France there is more casual nudity at some beaches, but you can't take that standard and be naked in some other country, and you can't enforce yr standards in France. You didn't answer the question - do you think Japan is full of pedophiles because they look at naked 14 yr olds? I do not think so. I think some men who are not pedophiles might still like looking at naked 14 yr olds. Where is yr cite to back up your assertion? 212259@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 05:09:46 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212216 no debbieann it is not, and for once PLEASE answer what was asked of you. Did you not basically come out and say that child porn was alright because kids look at other kids naked all the time anyway, so why would this hurt them? And did you not basically say it was alright to use 14 year olds in porn cause that is not "a child exactly"? PEDOPHILES ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO INDULGE IN CHILD PORN. PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PEDOPHILES DO NOT FIND CHILDREN SEXUALLY EXCITING. 212216@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:33:39 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212214 well, I think I was defending this man's right to read what he was reading in this particular situation. that is a far cry from defending child porn and pedophiles. 212214@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:27:54 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212212 you are right ergo, that is an even stronger argument. 212212@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:25:32 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212211 that is my mistake then. my apologies. but yes, I stand by what I said. I do believe you are defending child porn, and really not that much different from defending people's right to have sex with children. I am not going to launch into some tutorial about how pedophilia works. It's too much for this thread. child porn IS catering to pedophelia and you are defending it. If you had said regular porn featuring adults, I would have agreed with you. But nope, you found nothing wrong with the use of even 14 year olds in pornography. That is defending child porn. 212211@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:20:36 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212210 Thank you smallsquirrel. :) 212210@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:20:08 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212209 wow ergo, stunning use of hyperbole! 212209@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:14:48 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212208 where did you show me I was wrong? this part?: I never once said you were having sex with children. But I didn't say you said that. I said: you go even further and say I am have defending actually having sex with children. not me having sex with children, but that I am defending pedophiles, which I never did. You said I was twisting your words, so I used quotes instead. And I tried to focus on the argument rather than on personal attacks, if that is obfuscation ok. You twist my words just as much equating looking at acceptable in Japan porn with being a pedophile and telling me to join nambla. 212208@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:12:37 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212207 Debbieann, I think it's futile to approach this argument from the "culturally appropriate" or "tolerant" perspective. The fundamental fact is this: smallsquirrel violated the LEGAL and LEGITIMATE right, property, and personal space of a gentleman by forcefully stealing his magazine from him and humiliating him in public. The principle is this: if the act is legal, then however uncomfortable you may be with someone's practice of that act, you must not censor or ban his right to practice the act. To illustrate, say we lived on a planet where eating brocolli was considered incredibly rude, depraved, immoral, and wrong--but there was no LEGAL sanction against the practice. Then, a man eating brocolli there should have the full right to do so regardless of how uncomfortable it makes other people. This illustrates the necessity of having moral laws that are objective, universal, and fundamental. For example, notice there is much intolerance in India toward people who eat beef--as many Indians consider the animal their god. Thus, even though it is not illegal to eat beef, most restaurants do not serve beef, and it is hard to obtain it from public stores. This is a gross violation of the legal rights of those people who DO WISH to eat beef--even though it amounts to eating someone else's God! This is the principle that needs to be defended: we cannot go around denying people their moral right to property or liberty just because it makes us uncomfortable. A credible argument against dissuading someone else's actions can occur only if your own rights are being violated by the person's actions. In smallsquirrel's case, none of her rights were being violated. She has no right to "comfortable, porn-free" flights. Nor is she the "law of the skies" to be a vigilante for the sake of other children and their parents. Thus, smallsquirrel, you are not any different from the coercive, paternalistic, fascist governments of the world. 212207@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:05:08 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212206 ah, obfuscation. I just showed you were wrong, so you change the subject (notice that you have never once been able to defend your accusations once I proved them wrong on this thread... you simply drop that topic and move on to the next attack on me while I answer your questions. So who is the one that has no idea how to debate??!?!??!) But I will answer your question. Yes, culturally speaking she felt she could not admonish her elders. And I feel that is not necessarily so hot for someone who is on the airplane partially to help maintain order. What if the man had been drunk and unruly? Belligerent? As a flight attendant I understood that she felt between a rock and a hard place culturally. But I did not feel that same obligation. It was not my culture and other Japanese people on the plane (as well as people of other cultures) were made to feel uncomfortable my this man's actions (and also the stewardess's inaction). Note that the stewardess or any other Japanese person on the flight did not tell me that my actions were wrong. 212206@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 02:59:32 EDT http://desicritics.org/2007/06/01/060706.php#comment-212203 ok, they are more tolerant, so then why don't you show the same tolerance in a case where you were on a Japanese airline with Japanese people and the flight attendant said "the rules of engagement prohibited her from admonishing her elders." - you feel you should not follow the rules of engagement that are culturally appropriate? 212203@desicritics.org Mon, 4 Jun 2007 02:49:45 EDT