|
So, I'm just curious. Let's assume that Gadaffi is overthrown, and yay, the NTC is in control. What then? How homogeneous are they? What happens when you have a whole bunch of armed rebels wiling away their time? What effects are monarchism, liberalism, regionalism, fundamentalism and tribal politics going to play? These groups might've come together to get Gadaffi out, but what happens when they're left alone together? Does the NTC have a workable, pragmatic (i.e., besides "freedom," and "no Gadaffi") platform? I don't want to seem like a downer, but it would seem to me that this would be a major concern - the extension of the civil war post-Gadaffi. Heavily armed, decentralized militias and turncoat military units are seldom a cheery thing once the uniting factor has been kicked out, especially since you're going to have (now heavily armed) factions trying to make sure Libya is done their way. So has there been any discussion about this? Is anyone considering peacekeeping forces as a contingency to be put in place if Libya gets out of hand? NOTE: I'm not saying that this means I'm going "WE SHOULD'VE KEPT GADAFFI THERE'S GOING TO BE BLOODBATH," but I am curious about what seems to me to be the possibility of destabilization.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 14, 2025 04:24 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I don't know if you're talking about Libya or the US. If US Army units were fighting each other while rebel militias were marching on Washington, and fighting off armored convoys outside of New York City while EU airforces were bombing Baltimore sure, I'd be talking about the US when DC was sacked. But, well, you know, that's not happening. But in any case, a national government just overthrown by heavily armed rebels and defecting military units don't tend to be superb at maintaining national unity and asserting central authority, especially when the objective is democracy. Especially when the government in question has no infrastructure for developing a democracy. Nombres fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:This isn't unlike revolutions or civil wars throughout time, so I don't know why people think Libya is going to turn out like Somalia. Is it just because it's an Arabic country? There's a chance that happens, but there's a chance something beautiful happens. This isn't a response though. My question is legitimate, and is, by the way, backed up by the majority of revolutions and uprisings. Arming a whole bunch of people indiscriminately who might all be agreeing with each other to take out this one dude might not be the best idea when that guy is out and they're at each other's throats. It's a general truism that when the central government doesn't have the military backing to establish its central authority, Bad poo poo is going to happen. I'm not saying that I think it'll turn into Somalia. What I am saying is that an extended civil war is a real danger, one that should be prepared for. The truth is, it's really loving difficult to establish a democratic regime in a country ruled by an autocratic despot for the past 30-40 years, and it isn't putting down the Libyan people to say that this could end up not so well if people aren't careful. Similar things almost happened in the US after the revolution, and happened in Russia after the Tsar, France in the later days of the First Republic, and in many other situations. It isn't casting dispersions on the Libyan people, it's asking a pragmatic question about what's going to happen afterwards. Nombres fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:"Running its course" doesn't have a moral value, but in this case is the best option. It will quickly be resolved if we let it go. By intervening, we simply prolong the conflict and that will lead to massive suffering. This isn't a fever, it's an attempt to cut short what appears to be an incresingly brutal civil war including indiscriminate artillery strikes on civilian residences, and repeated pledges by Gadaffi to slaughter the rebels. What do you suppose happens after Benghazi falls? All of the sudden Gadaffi is going to get a moment of lucidity and set up a Truth and Reconciliation Counsel? No, he's going to make it clear that it will be a very bad idea for people to rise up again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Calling this a "genocide" is not only a misnomer, but incredibly offensive to what a real genocide is. There's a difference between violently putting down a rebellion and ethnic cleansing. Obviously, violently putting down a rebellion is bad. But that's what autocrats do when their regime is threatened. That's hardly unexpected. This happens all the time, and we feel no need to intervene at other times. Now suddenly Libya is a "cause" and gosh, we gotta get over there and start saving people. Even if it's a cause, does something being a cause make it less morally positive? If I save a child's family from starvation by giving him money at the grocery store, is that all of the sudden worthless because I'm not saving every starving family out there? gently caress off, no. Also, where are you getting your position that intervention will kill more people than it'll save? Of course, we should let them all fall back into the hands of a madman who pledged to kill them all like cockroaches! That'll save lives!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Syphilitic Monarch posted:Too bad. They shouldn't have betrayed their nation and begged for foreign bombing of their own people. If the rebels stage a come back, they'll have to give their 'liberators' everything they want and more. Be massacred by tanks and airstrikes and mercenary units or call in help to establish one's own country-not-ruled-by-a-crazy-zombie? Does this technically count as a Hobson choice?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I still don't think this is an intervention particularly likely to succeed: I think it's too late and air power is useless if the rebel army has been too beaten up to retake the rebel cities. However, we'll probably see relatively quickly: either they'll continue to be routed, or they won't. If they manage to recover, I'm not sure I see a viable way for them to take Tripoli and oust Quadaffi, so it'll probably end up a divided country, which isn't a great solution. If that happens, the polite fiction that this is about protecting civilians makes it hard to justify using air power to support rebel advances (and definitely makes it impossible to use air power to help them take cities - dropping bombs willy-nilly in urban areas is not going to help anything). I think people severely overestimate the likelihood of success here. I'd be willing to side with this. I would however, also side with the idea that the intervention, even if it failed in achieving its (apparently) ultimate goal of supporting the anti-Gadaffi drive, was still a net positive in that it didn't allow this crazy gently caress to regain control of the country so we could test just how dedicated he was to his speeches, especially given his previous violence. I fear though, that even if they target supply convoys and artillery bases, that'll at best allow the rebels to advance, but will require them to slog through the country.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
farraday posted:My major problem with your assessment is not in the quality of the militias, but n how well the pro-Ghaddaffi forces will hold up under air bombardment. They've already apparently pulled out of Benghazi leaving reportedly(possibly rumored) 2-6 usable tanks behind. If the rebel militias are able to advance at all you could see Ghaddafis gains of the last week turned around rapidly. I think the problem is that whereas the coalition was accepting of using air power in Benghazi to turn the tide - because it was "this or nothing," I think the worry is that if the rebels go on the offensive, the Coalition won't be so keen to do airstrikes in cities the rebels are trying to capture for fear of causing the very civilian casualties their mandate was to prevent. It's a pretty old strategy to, in urban combat, have your soldiers "hugging," the enemy to make air support difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
farraday posted:Absolutely true, but it requires a quality of troop that is not readily apparent to me Kaddaffi has. I'm not saying they have to be elite troops, but that, much like the militias, after being subject to repeated airstrikes in the open destroying their heavy equipment, they'll be looking to retreat or surrender instead of fight in the cities. That's true, but have Gadaffi's troops been shown in an absolute rout? I was under the impression that the retreat from Benghazi was more of a withdrawal so they didn't lose any more of their units. Not to mention, people will often fight for some ridiculous poo poo. All you need is one pissed off rebel brigade to massacre surrendering pro-Gadaffi troops, and all of the sudden the pro-Gadaffi troops as a whole fear surrender. I'm not saying this is going to happen. Maybe you have people willing to fight for Gadaffi because he's the only ruler they've known in their lives, or they're afraid of what's going to happen if he falls. Again, I'm not saying he's going to get ten divisions of fanatics under him, but I just think it's an dangerous business to count on enemy units being militia level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:By all accounts, the Rebels have been accepting surrenders and properly treating their prisoners (even the mercenaries, who don't deserve nor are legally required to be provided with mercy). Hopefully this stays the same in the future. I'm not saying massacres are happening now or are standard procedure. I have no doubt and have heard nothing but surrendered soldiers being treated properly. But all it takes is a few of the guys to come from the same block that was just leveled by tank or artillery fire, and, well, bad things can happen. Slightly tangential, but if this does erupt into a civil war, expect both sides to get better at fighting and urban combat. It's not unknown at all for conscript units to become well-seasoned veteran troops over the course of a devastating war. Again, I just want to throw in these caveats because I'm sure it might be easy to misinterpret what I'm saying, but I'm not saying that the rebels are going to get steamrolled or the rebels are incompetent soldiers. I'm just iffy when people rely on the low morale of the opposing forces, and this isn't an illegitimate concern - it's one of the reasons you hear about all the military planners talking about mass casualties when they draw something up, most of the time: they're expecting to go against veteran units, and are to some degree underestimating their own. When you don't, stuff like WWI happens. Nombres fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:Wars can be strange things. If i gave you $317,000,000,000 and asked you to eliminate some 30-40,000 (technologically inferior) OpFor, and asked you to give me a timeframe for your victory, I doubt you would say nine and a half years (and counting). It's certainly a tossup, but here's the difference between Iraq and Libya: whereas it was a rational strategy to inflict enough damage on US forces to press for a retreat, that's not really possible unless you're hoping to instill mutiny. If pro-Gadaffi forces lose, it's over, they either submit to trials (which tend not to be that friendly) or they get out of dodge and live in exile. Both sides have their backs to the wall, and realize that if Gadaffi broke through to Benghazi or if the rebels broke through and pushed onto Tripoli, that'd be it for them, and especially for soldiers caught in that advance. This would be, no kidding, significant support for soldiers either mass deserting or fighting hard. Again, you know, this isn't a valuation in favor of Gadaffi forces or rebel forces. Just a call for caution and to say that being overconfident in one side (any side) could be a mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
I'm curious, where are the NTC getting their arms, vehicles and ammunition? I assume there were probably government armories they raided, but how well were they equipped? How rich is Benghazi, i.e., will the NTC have the financial ability to purchase these new arms and ammunition when the current ones become run down, lost in combat or just generally broken? If they got them from armories, were the armories stocked for a prolonged conflict? Do the Coalition nations have any plans to supply NTC forces with arms and ammunition? I know Gadaffi is getting arms and ammunition from Belarus et al., but I doubt that's in effect since the no-fly zone came into effect. It doesn't really change anything knowing these or not (unless the NTC is running low on ammo and the Coalition isn't planning to send stuff, then I guess they're in trouble), but I'm just curious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Slave posted:Jesus Christ, is the New of the World the Brit version of the Weekly World News or something? Who the hell would print that cover? I guess In The Loop was right, you guys do like bad puns in your papers!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Slave posted:Its a Murdoch paper that gets sued a lot for making stuff up about celebrities and is currently in deep poo poo for hacking the voicemail of royalty and politicians. Also not keen on immigration, its our dead tree Fox News with more tits. "Where are all the tits? Gotta have tits to sell a paper!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1aZcsY-O8Q Nombres fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
farraday posted:Words from around the globe To be fair, if we were pulling scaremongers in the gov't into Retard Shock Brigades, the EU would contribute a sizable contingent. Nombres fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
Times posted:So is he literally trying to claim the airstikes HE made on his own people were the work of the UN and the 'western crusaders'? Along with all those hospitals full of people he murdered? What a cowardly wretch of a monsters he is. Bullies don't disappear when you get to middle school. The same kid with low self esteem who pushes around smaller kids to feel better and starts crying when the teacher yells at him exists when the boss with low self esteem comes into work late and tells all his workers they're going to have to pull double shifts with a grin on his face. It exists when the warlord decides to shoot a few grandees. It exists when the same man kicks around the populace so he has to turn anti-aircraft cannons on them. Is it more complex than that? Yeah. But some things are blindly basic, and "human beings can be cowardly, petty fucks," are one of them, sadly. One doubts if we can even grand them a "regression," since it would signify that they were competent, normal adults in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:As somebody said in the Sheen thread, the world would be a better place (or at least a bit funnier) if Charlie Sheen was a dictator and Gadhaffi had a sitcom. "Hey, Mo, the landlord is saying you have to turn down your Lynard Skynard." "I will smash that cockroach!" [Laugh Track] "I will make him stop putting LSD in my coffee! I will cleanse his apartment room by room!" [Laugh & Applause] It'd probably still be a highly rated sitcom. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
brewmeister posted:Gadhafi knows that all is lost, that he will eventually be captured, tried for crimes against humanity, and executed. He is pretty much saying gently caress it and trying to bring as many people down with him as he can. He does not care about his country. loving coward. Do us a favor and do what Hitler did, blow your brains out, and save the world all the trouble. Now that you bring this up, is there anywhere Gadaffi can flee to? I know Idi Amin went to Saudi Arabia for a few decades before he died, is there any pro-Gadaffi place that would take him in? I wonder if the coalition would care so long as he's out of power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
Polaron posted:I honestly can't believe some of the things Venezuela TV has been saying about this Libyan situation. I mean, I knew Chavez didn't like the US or our allies, but I guess I didn't really realize the extent of it. Isn't Chavez kinda loony himself, or am I just a victim of American propaganda?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
Mattimer posted:‘Unlimited patience and deep faith’ We'll only know for sure if he goes on a rant about how the people want assholes for leaders and not Nice Guys like him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:By consistent do you mean "ignores context"? The thousands of civilians being slaughtered all over Libya thank Kucinich for his righteous and firm stand against a UN-mandated operation to stop genocide. Truly a defender of the "little guy"! It really is the same sort of thing that gets people criticized as "BEING A FLIPFLOPPER!!!!!" I'm not sure whereabouts "constancy in the face of utterly differing circumstances or new information," gets championed. Different situations have different facts and contexts and repercussions and moral basis to begin with, and ought to be treated with a new examination each time. To grab this and try and hoist it in the air screaming about pacifism-at-all-costs is about as retarded as you can get, from a moral as well as a PR standpoint. It's not even intelligent. Force isn't the best thing in the world, no, but sometimes you do have to step in and stop civilians from getting shredded by AA guns and autocannons. I can see being nervous about where it's going to end up, and maybe even a bit jaded by the possibility of another lengthy combat operation, and worried about the costs and loss of life. But standing up and going, "NO NO FORCE AT ALL NO THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE WAR ALWAYS IS" is, and I will be blunt, dumb. Nombres fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The leftists would also be correct if the coalition followed your brilliant tactics. It's interesting. Bomb the station --> Why? --> Because leftists might believe it. --> Believe what? --> That we're bombing civilians and civilians are being killed. --> So what can we do about it? --> Bomb a civilian building. Really, I've yet to know a single person who can take those Gadaffi broadcasts seriously. Unless I'm seeing some Nombres-only version, and Mecha-Goebbels is orchestrating Libyan State TV, I don't think we can worry about State TV tarnishing the image of the coalition too much. EDIT: Let's not forget that jamming media networks rarely tends to go over that well. The same people that would use Gadaffi's broadcasts to justify their anti-Libya attack would probably use his lack of broadcasts due to a bombing of a civilian station as evidence that the Coalition didn't want stuff getting out. Bottom line: crazy people are resourceful. They will work with what you give them, even if you give them nothing. Nombres fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why are you so angry, bombing campaigns are not exactly seamless affairs. So far so good, but for how long? My fear is an expansion of this conflict, beyond just protecting civilians. I agree with this. I want to note that my position above wasn't HELL YEAH BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIGHT 'EM UP SARGE, just that I think pacifism-at-all-costs is something of a morally bankrupt position to take in this situation, thus why I heavily disagree with Kucinich. Anti-war in general is a good neutral gear to be in - war is bad, after all. It would be bad if we had to get involved in the war, even if we were forced to by some fluke in the war that lead to a rapidly collapsing rebel front and Gadaffi going nuts on the survivors. (This is not a prediction.) This does not mean we go, "I don't like war," and continue letting Gadaffi go nuts. There's such a thing as being able to ideologically suck it up for what very well might be a greater good - you (universal) might not like conflict, but I'm willing to bet that's because there's bloodshed, and I'm willing to submit it'd be hypocritical to avoid conflict with the objective of avoiding bloodshed, and by doing so encourage and allow the commission of an even greater deal of bloodshed, if that makes sense. Skepticism is good, but so is a healthy dose of realism. Nombres fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Expansion to where? I believe he means expanding the mission. Instead of bombing to protect civilians, we bomb to protect rebel columns. Instead of protecting rebel columns, we provide close air support. Instead of close air support, we land some marines to help support a faltering rebel column. (Not a prediction, just a bunch of hypotheticals.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tAQaH7zk I'm not quite sure what's going on in this video, but was that the police opening fire on the people shouting "God is great"? Can anyone who speaks Arabic inform me as to what's happening here (besides the obvious)?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:This is why the Turkish opposition to this being a NATO operation is problematic. That was their out to make this a non-US led operation. The British have already said they have absolutely no interest in leading, so I guess the plan now is to convince Sarkozy that it would be fun to be in charge. Otherwise they'll have to gin up some non-specific multinational leadership council that will give the other coalition participants plenty of cover to extract themselves when this inevitably requires escalation. "Sarkozy, remember before that Suez thing where you guys still owned part of the playground? Wanna go back to that? That'd be cool, wouldn't it?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 08:46
|
|
|
quadratic posted:Even pigs are not viewed as harshly as people seem to think. The only Quranic mention is the prohibition of the consumption of their flesh. Want to raise a pet pig? No problem! (Just don't eat it.) Doesn't the Qur'an allow the consumption of pigs under certain (e.g., life-saving) circumstances? I seem to remember the prohibition being reduced if it was between being starved to death and consuming a pig. Not really relevant to the conversation, but just for my own edification. EDIT: You actually hear that stuff a bunch from people who can't be arsed to learn any more about Islam than what they see on the news, i.e., "Muslims hate pork for some reason." That means they go to hell if it touches them! 
Nombres fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
Finlander posted:Hmm. I wonder why. I also wonder why "damaged" was in quotes, when "civilian house" would've been a bit more accurate. Or, hell, why not say ""damaged" "civilian" "house""? It's probably not all that damaged, not a civilian building, and probably not even a house. "Damaged civilian house" = Charred Loyalist Tank
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:"Tree Stump that's been beaten with a Sledgehammer" "A hill that's kinda lopsided, I guess"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:But it means they've sure come a long way from their roots in Fremskridtspartiet, who's party leader Mogens Glistrup at one point wanted to replace the Danish military with an answering machine looping the message "We surrender" in Russian. Holy poo poo, I thought this was a joke, but nope. Tell me it is!  Is this like, the Rhino Party or something?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Is that a flare gun in his right hand? He'll still find a way to take out a tank brigade with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Wow, I remember there was a lot of talk in the thread about a week ago about how Gadaffi's forces were done, they were going to disintegrate, and then it'd be a wonderful little jaunty picnic in Tripoli. Now the loyalists are whooping rear end again. I wanted that to be true, I really did. Go Benghazi, boo Tripoli.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Countdown until someone puts up a youtube video of rebels marching around to Yakedy Sax. But, seriously. What's going to happen when the original rush of "YEAH REVOLUTION," dies down and we get caught in a protracted fight? How will the NTC maintain morale? Will the NTC be able to maintain control if things continue to not progress? I wonder to what degree these counterattacks are draining rebel morale, and to what degree NTC legitimacy might be flagging? Not necessarily that people would prefer to have Gadaffi back, but maybe seek to replace the largely civilian group with more militarily focused individuals? It's not been unknown to happen. Not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's something of an alarming turn from the "Gadaffi's done and his forces are going to melt away and the rebels will drive to Tripoli!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:Why is this insane idiot so popular on the internet anyway? Because a ton of internet/comp sci nerds are Libertarian lunatics*, plus you have things like Infowars, etc., with people who think they're fighting for liberty by voting RON PAUL in an internet poll. *The Comp Sci part especially. Probably 3/4 of all Comp Sci people I've met in my University are Libertarian/Minarchist. It's kinda like the Comp Sci version of the Salem Hypothesis.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
straw man posted:I've observed this too, but I've interpreted it differently. There's a big difference between some of the "lunatics" in the Libertarian Party - an institution apparently obsessed with ideological purity - and libertarian beliefs. The Libertarians themselves emphasize the difference between "capital-L" and "little-l" libertarians. No. I'm talking about the lunatic Libertarians. And yes, I'm aware of the constant whining about Big-L and Little-L Libertarians, I have to hear them shout it in my ear every time one of them decides to go on a rant about positive and negative liberty and how civil rights are statist, etc. Yes, you have to pay your taxes, no, it isn't ROBBING YOU OF THE FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR, no, poor people are not poor because they're not as hard working as you are, yes, workplace regulations are a good idea, etc. In fact, I'll go further. Libertarians, in general, are nutters. That's it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
straw man posted:I like this post. Negative liberty is generally given as the type of liberty that exists because there's no one preventing you from doing something. Positive liberty is the opposite, and is in the Libertarian taxonomy usually interpreted as liberty given and enforced from a central state (say, civil rights), and is generally therefore interpreted as being illegitimate, thus, as I said before, the argument that civil rights are statist (= immoral). It's worth noting that this is vastly simplified, and in reality could apply to internal factors (e.g., self-control resulting in positive liberty), but this is generally ignored. During the time period I assume you're talking about, say, before the Civil War when income taxes were imposed, the Federal Gov't was tiny. It essentially had a minimal military presence compared to what's expected of nations today (this was, by the way, SOP for the US before WWII when in the 1930's the US army was outnumbered by Czechoslovakia's army), and had little to no regulatory agencies or oversight bodies. It was tiny. Thankfully - and I do want to stress this - the government does have to maintain a number of very large administrative and regulatory bodies to make sure that, say, I'm not inadvertently being fed radium because the company at hand thought it'd be an awesome promotional tool. As for why the poor are poor, things such as generational poverty, endemic under-education, systemic racism, learned helplessness, a lack of support for vocational programs, and numerous other factors make the issue far more complex than "THE POOR ARE LAZY!" Nombres fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
straw man posted:Generational poverty - my father has more money than I do, and my mother has less. Should I be poor or rich? Are you serious? Literally none of these things mean what you think they do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
straw man posted:Then instead of posting a one-liner, tell me where I'm wrong! Explain what you mean! I'm here to learn. I don't have a political ideology. I'm a registered Democrat, 90% of my Facebook friends are Republicans, I've spent the night at the local Libertarian chairman's house, and I wanted Ralph Nader to win in 2000. If your idea of those concepts are the one-liners you yourself came up with, I think I'm pretty well justified in doubting your good faith when it comes to your claim to "be here to learn." Do I think you're here as the super-innocent seeker of truth when your response to the idea of generational poverty is "my father has more money than I do, and my mother has less. Should I be poor or rich?" No, I don't. If you say things like that, I have no real reason to give you an honest response or attempt to engage you. You couldn't even google the drat term to come up with an actual response to it. If you refuse to add to the discourse, why am I forced to? quote:From my perspective, this intervention is the definition of astroturf. The American government bought UNSCR 1973 with political concessions. At the same time, the resolution doesn't deviate from American intelligence's history in the "third world". Does that mean your idea is that this was instigated by the CIA in order to justify intervention? Because I'm trying to find another meaning to this, and I'm not quite sure what it could be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
straw man posted:I'm not in a discussion with Google. I'm in a discussion with you, other awful forum poster. I googled the "Salem Hypothesis" and I got a site called rationalwiki that used "crackpot" and "quackery" in the definition - forgive me for asking the question directly instead of going to a third party. What does your comment about the Salem Hypothesis have to do about anything? It's a semi-lighthearted commentary on the tendencies of Engineers, it's not a serious hypothesis, on a website that was created solely to oppose Conservapedia no less. If you didn't like that, you could have gone down to literally the next website on the list and read from PZ Meyers' blog, which gives a good summary of it and its history. My comment on it was a stab that, in my experience, Libertarian beliefs tend to be overrepresented in Comp Sci/Programming fields, just as the Salem Hypothesis states that Creationists seem to be overrepresented in the Engineering field. Your comment about your mother and father from different social backgrounds is a problem. Heads up: a conversation isn't sitting around and going "what's what?" while trying your darnedest to throw little pointed questions in about stuff you by your own admission don't understand. This is why I honestly don't take your "I'm here to learn!" position seriously - if you were, why did you try and reject those concepts with questions that didn't address them and then later on admit you don't know what they are? That's hardly a learning attitude, and seems quite frankly disingenuous. You can't even be bothered to look it up before you try and reject it. But fine. Generational poverty, or cyclical poverty, or the cycle of poverty (there are multiple names) discusses the concept that the situation in which a child is raised, most notably the situation of that child's parents, is perpetuated throughout that child's life and is ultimately passed down to his own children. For various reasons, including poor education, overworked parents who can't take part in that education, poor health (poverty does take a toll on health), systemic racism (yes, it does exist, and no it is by no means as difficult or nearly as difficult on whites as it is on other ethnicities), and other factors. A lot of this creates a feedback loop, for instance in education - poorer students for a bevy of environmental and economic reasons tend to do worse, so the school tends to be only able to hire lower quality teachers (few teachers want to teach in public schools in Newark, and more want to work in higher performing districts), which leads to increasingly poor scores. Increasingly poor scores means that the available pool of teachers willing to work there is lower, leading to lower scores, etc. Eventually, the majority of teachers were produced by that (poor) school district, perpetuating the effect of poverty in education there. In other words, if a population is poor, due to various outside factors, it's likely that their children with few exceptions will also be poor. This results in the odds being stacked consistently higher against poor populations, which makes social mobility far more difficult on the individual/micro level to pretty much impossible on a macro level without significant intervention. Nombres fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 14, 2025 04:24 |
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:New pics of the Mercenaries have surfaced: I saw this film as a youngin', and didn't notice how ridiculous this was until I took Chemistry. Each one of the gold bars in that bag probably weighs around 30 pounds (I think the standard is 27 or something?), and there have to be at least ten in each bag. Each of those duffles is probably more than 300 pounds. It'd suck to be paid in gold bricks because if you did anything worthwhile enough to be paid in them, you probably wouldn't be able to get it back home unless you had slaves carrying it for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 04:50
|
|
