Vietnam is one country. During the period in question, two governments were fighting it out for control of that country, one doing well in the North and one doing well in the South. Each was keen on re-establishing normality (full control over the whole territory). You are picking out one of those factions and calling it the legitimate one.
Either you recognise US action as external aggression (a war crime), or you claim it as an out-sourced South Vietnamese internal-repression campaign (which in your book is bombing/gassing/crushing one's "own" people, and therefore intolerable by that very fact).
I'll ignore further comments about China, as they are straw men (no one has said the government isn't repressive).
Well, if we're going for pure conciseness, I suppose I should give you kudos for admitting, in one line, that you don't have any cites for the example that I gave.
How about cites of powers running over their own unarmed left-handed citizens with green tanks no more than three metres long on a Sunday after a rainy Friday, but not on a leap year?
Demanding very specific forms of abuse before you'll accept that there's abuse is dishonest and comical. "--Hitler killed 6M Jews! --Ah, but did he do it with the guillotine? --Um, no... --In that case he's nothing compared to the evil of the French revolution!"
I also think there's something screwy in the insistence on the victims being "their own". It is normal to assume that a state has greater rights over its own citizens than over others. Thus, we accept police offers imprisoning (sometimes with eventual executions) "their own" citizens, and would consider it quite objectionable for police acting outside their jurisdiction to do the same. And yet, when it suits them, people like you like to turn that on its head.
A weird consequence of this is that, in your book, an abuse against a person living in the territory of your state is less extreme if that person is unjustly denied citizenship as well. A case in point is the West Bank Palestinians, quite a few of whom have been crushed by tanks or bulldozers, and who live on land militarily controlled by Israel, slowly colonised by Israel, and claimed as part of Israel by fringes of Israeli society, and yet not granted Israeli citizenship.
As it happens, I am going to move to China next year, as it is a fantastic place, despite its awful government.
The usual estimates (see Wikipedia) of Vietnamese civilian casualties following the American attack on their country is 4.5 million. You can add another million or two if you count Cambodian civilians, soldiers in various forces, etc. The Iraq war is not over yet, but the excess deaths are generally estimated at over a million so far. Even the individually-documented deaths due to violence approach 100,000 (real deaths are typically 5-50 times more than individually-documented ones).
Even the number of dead Americans resulting from Bush sending them abroad far exceeds the numbers killed in, for example, the Twin Towers.
The savage love-affair with death is very apparent in certain sectors of our Western society.
There isn't much point talking to you, because we're not discussing the same world.
I'm referring to the millions of civilians slaughtered by America in those recent wars, and you are talking about your militaristic fantasies.
If you're going to follow that line, then I could say that if you want to participate in the Greek Olympic tradition, then, by Zeus, you should have to abide by the principle of neutrality and suspended hostilities in the context of the Games.
China visibly and provably improving its human rights and freedoms should have been a prerequisite of being given the olympics
Since the chance of the same standard being applied to Western countries is nil, you are essentially saying that the chinks and towelheads don't get to host the Olympics, but we do. That's the level of morality in the suggestion.
I laugh at those people installing Paranoid Linux. It is clearly nothing but an Illuminati ploy to get us to install their OS. Once installed, it will phone home to Al Qaeda and annihilate us all, I tell you!11!!!!
It's really sad when someone uses that in a reductio ad absurdum. It's like hearing someone argue that we oughtn't to hold elections, because it would be just as absurdly leftist as abolishing slavery.
jocks could make a fist five feet away from me and I'd flinch and duck. Was I a pussy?
Most definitely. A big, slobbering one.
That goes way beyond having fast reactions. That sort of pathetic paranoia is highly likely to give great amusement to jocks, and encourage them to feint more.
The equivalent paranoia in someone more powerful (one of the jocks themselves, or indeed a nation with a big army) is likely to translate into pre-emptive violence against others. This is exactly what we are talking about here: cowardly, irrational, paranoid people resorting to irrational, violent and vengeful politics.
The problem with many "liberals" is that they have a silly, rosy view of people and the world, and think there's nothing to be afraid of with people who are "different", even if their religion tells them they need to kill you.
No, it's not at all true that liberal don't warn that Christians are dangerous.
If we really want standards and we really want openness, having no way for a Web server to determine what the browser is can only advance this goal. Then the only concern is whether that browser is standards-compliant.
Not true. The only way to provide valid XHTML is to serve it as text/html to IE and application/xhtml+xml to modern browsers.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
I've been working in IT now for about 15 years. In those 15 years some of the best managers I've ever had were the least technical people in the organization.
Well, obviously. One would expect that negative correlation even if technical skill had a positive causal relationship with managerial skill (and it does).
Statistically, that's what happens if you make a set by drawing on members of two separate other sets.
Slashdot Mirror
Vietnam is one country. During the period in question, two governments were fighting it out for control of that country, one doing well in the North and one doing well in the South. Each was keen on re-establishing normality (full control over the whole territory). You are picking out one of those factions and calling it the legitimate one.
Either you recognise US action as external aggression (a war crime), or you claim it as an out-sourced South Vietnamese internal-repression campaign (which in your book is bombing/gassing/crushing one's "own" people, and therefore intolerable by that very fact).
I'll ignore further comments about China, as they are straw men (no one has said the government isn't repressive).
Well, if we're going for pure conciseness, I suppose I should give you kudos for admitting, in one line, that you don't have any cites for the example that I gave.
How about cites of powers running over their own unarmed left-handed citizens with green tanks no more than three metres long on a Sunday after a rainy Friday, but not on a leap year?
Demanding very specific forms of abuse before you'll accept that there's abuse is dishonest and comical. "--Hitler killed 6M Jews! --Ah, but did he do it with the guillotine? --Um, no... --In that case he's nothing compared to the evil of the French revolution!"
I also think there's something screwy in the insistence on the victims being "their own". It is normal to assume that a state has greater rights over its own citizens than over others. Thus, we accept police offers imprisoning (sometimes with eventual executions) "their own" citizens, and would consider it quite objectionable for police acting outside their jurisdiction to do the same. And yet, when it suits them, people like you like to turn that on its head.
A weird consequence of this is that, in your book, an abuse against a person living in the territory of your state is less extreme if that person is unjustly denied citizenship as well. A case in point is the West Bank Palestinians, quite a few of whom have been crushed by tanks or bulldozers, and who live on land militarily controlled by Israel, slowly colonised by Israel, and claimed as part of Israel by fringes of Israeli society, and yet not granted Israeli citizenship.
An ass = asinine = an idiot = idiotic.
As it happens, I am going to move to China next year, as it is a fantastic place, despite its awful government.
The usual estimates (see Wikipedia) of Vietnamese civilian casualties following the American attack on their country is 4.5 million. You can add another million or two if you count Cambodian civilians, soldiers in various forces, etc. The Iraq war is not over yet, but the excess deaths are generally estimated at over a million so far. Even the individually-documented deaths due to violence approach 100,000 (real deaths are typically 5-50 times more than individually-documented ones).
Even the number of dead Americans resulting from Bush sending them abroad far exceeds the numbers killed in, for example, the Twin Towers. The savage love-affair with death is very apparent in certain sectors of our Western society.
There isn't much point talking to you, because we're not discussing the same world. I'm referring to the millions of civilians slaughtered by America in those recent wars, and you are talking about your militaristic fantasies.
How about the ones from the last fifty years or so. Does that clear it up?
Not at all, because that might include the Second World War, and would certainly include the wars against Vietnam and Iraq.
That AC brought up past colonisation because it is such an excellent example in itself, but I was talking about current policies.
Let me clear it up for you--try not running tanks over your citizens when they're peacefully protesting. That should help.
How does clear anything up? It only muddies the waters further by implying that Western powers never crush people with tanks, etc.
That also means nude athletes.
I'll put up with the nude blokes if it means a nude Stephanie Rice.
Apparently it doesn't take very many Greeks to keep out hordes of Persians, so that shouldn't be too much trouble.
If you're going to follow that line, then I could say that if you want to participate in the Greek Olympic tradition, then, by Zeus, you should have to abide by the principle of neutrality and suspended hostilities in the context of the Games.
China visibly and provably improving its human rights and freedoms should have been a prerequisite of being given the olympics
Since the chance of the same standard being applied to Western countries is nil, you are essentially saying that the chinks and towelheads don't get to host the Olympics, but we do. That's the level of morality in the suggestion.
They're supposed to be animals.
Cute Koala!
Pouncing Possum!
Tasmanian Tiger!
Puzzling Platypus!
Weird Wombat!
Bonza Budgie!
Bad hair day ?
Nah, just having trouble with drivers on 64-bit Kubuntu Intrepid beta.
You work in QA? Sigh. OK, I'm just about motivated enough to look that up on Wikipedia. Oh. There are ten meanings.
You see those little squiggles that go after the first squiggle in every word? They're there for a fuckin' reason.
Good luck finding a programming job in Qatar. YATSTDAJA.
I laugh at those people installing Paranoid Linux. It is clearly nothing but an Illuminati ploy to get us to install their OS. Once installed, it will phone home to Al Qaeda and annihilate us all, I tell you!11!!!!
What's that going to do without "sudo" in front of it? Not much.
Let's see. I got fired from Hewlett-Packard for having a picture of Claudia Schiffer in a evening gown (not nude) on my PC.
Yeah, I would fire you for that. Condoning any sort of objectification of half of my people on my property is not only wrong...
Wow, you have Claudia Schiffer (and one other person) on your property? Lucky dude. I didn't even know she had got into I.T.
'It's typically inappropriate photos -- like holding up a can of beer at a party,'
People using the word "inappropriate"... inappropriately really annoys me. They use it to mean "I don't like it," when the term has an actual meaning.
If holding a drink at a party is "inappropriate", then so is pissing in a toilet.
It's really sad when someone uses that in a reductio ad absurdum. It's like hearing someone argue that we oughtn't to hold elections, because it would be just as absurdly leftist as abolishing slavery.
jocks could make a fist five feet away from me and I'd flinch and duck. Was I a pussy?
Most definitely. A big, slobbering one.
That goes way beyond having fast reactions. That sort of pathetic paranoia is highly likely to give great amusement to jocks, and encourage them to feint more.
The equivalent paranoia in someone more powerful (one of the jocks themselves, or indeed a nation with a big army) is likely to translate into pre-emptive violence against others. This is exactly what we are talking about here: cowardly, irrational, paranoid people resorting to irrational, violent and vengeful politics.
The problem with many "liberals" is that they have a silly, rosy view of people and the world, and think there's nothing to be afraid of with people who are "different", even if their religion tells them they need to kill you.
No, it's not at all true that liberal don't warn that Christians are dangerous.
If we really want standards and we really want openness, having no way for a Web server to determine what the browser is can only advance this goal. Then the only concern is whether that browser is standards-compliant.
Not true. The only way to provide valid XHTML is to serve it as text/html to IE and application/xhtml+xml to modern browsers.
I've been working in IT now for about 15 years. In those 15 years some of the best managers I've ever had were the least technical people in the organization.
Well, obviously. One would expect that negative correlation even if technical skill had a positive causal relationship with managerial skill (and it does).
Statistically, that's what happens if you make a set by drawing on members of two separate other sets.
And he almost certainly broke that agreement. If that's the case, then I don't see how the university's response is wrong.
You show an utter inability to see any difference between rules and morals; between what you can get away with and what you ought to do.