I'll add that probably the experience with IRA may have emotionally altered some perceptions.
And the conflicting but complicit classifications of Hezbollah are no wonder too.
But you know, sometimes when you have a limited political awareness it's easier to reduce an opinion or an analysis of a complex situation to a redacted interview or videoclip. I think those missing sentences could be pretty damning. A descent into absurdity furthered by FOX news.
There's a lesson to be learned through all of the recent madness, though: tongue in cheek comments can damage lizards' tongues.
Really? I thought UK considered Hezbollah that way too.
Hey, I agree with Finkelstein's opinion! And with the EU which doesn't portray Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, treating it with political dignity. And I've read quite a lot of stuff about it. Memri is far from being a respectable source in my eyes, and Americans should be wary too. Just check who runs it.
Probably some Americans like being manipulated. In this, I see no difference from Europe, or the rest of the world.
Edit: the term self-hating Jew speaks a lot about the mindset of the OP. Call me a self-hating Italian since I have enormous issues with the Italian government, then. Or avoid calling me so, it's better. I wouldn't like it.
Probably some Americans like being manipulated. In this, I see no difference from Europe, or the rest of the world.
Edit: the term self-hating Jew speaks a lot about the mindset of the OP. Call me a self-hating Italian since I have enormous issues with the Italian government, then. Or avoid calling me so, it's better. I wouldn't like it.
The choice of word, 'idiots', is interesting if you relate it to the original (ancient Greece) meaning of the word. I agree to such a reading, and I agree to the 'always have been', although I can't be sure about the future.
As I like to remember, I'm a part time adept of the humorous de-evolution theory which was the basis of Devo's music. Raw intelligence seems to be rising where IQ tests are conducted (phenomenon known as Flynn effect), but nonetheless the state of the education is really worrying in some modern Western Countries, including (but not limited to) the USA.
The Flynn effect seems to be tied to a widespread higher education, and there is some evidence (although not definitive) that the effect vanishes when constant advances in education have vanished.
This is a very interesting phenomenon that has a strong connection to past deterministic theories that portrayed mankind as determined by the surrounding environment, and consistent with evolutionary theories too.
There's nonetheless a significant shift from old determinism and an approach similar to that of new determinism (aka ecologism), which connects the development of the environment to human activities, hence establishing a biunivocal relationship formerly not present in old determinism. For instance the IQ debate related to race seems to shift from racial characteristics to the environment surrounding the individual, no matter the race. A summary can be found in this commentary (replete with final correction, amen to that!).
So the world, it seems, is becoming smarter, or so has become in the last years, maybe coming to a stall now. Unfortunately if the Flynn effect is really tied to education I see a grim future.
There's an additional factor, though. When I was in my teens I had an English teacher who believed that the world, starting from the States where he lived for a lot of years, was moving to specialised idiocy: you have lots of people who are particularly smart at some task with a remarkably high raw IQ, yet they fail completely at making sense in seemingly obvious stuff. They don't lack the ability, they lack the will.
I really don't know what the future will be, but I don't think that the future will look like Idiocracy. And I don't even think it's going to be worse: most of the times I hear people complaining that the past had more freedom and that moral corruption is on the rise.
I don't think so. I'm a middle class worker and I have a good life: I don't overwork, I don't struggle for food and I have all the time I need to experience various aspects of life, although time never seems to be enough for all the things I deem interesting; but then again, ten or twenty lives wouldn't suffice, knowledge differs a lot from the one diffused in Europe during the Middle Ages, and the cultural approach is totally different.
If I go back for a less significant amount of time (say, a century) I find myself working twelve to fourteen hours a day, no holydays and almost no time or occasion to gather information that could help me keep a systematic approach to my philosophy of life and thought. I don't believe we're living in the dark ages. As I said before sometimes I doubt it, but I happen to think - overall - that the availability of information has given birth to significant advances in the quality of life of the masses. Nevertheless I still think that specialised idiocy is a looming danger, one that cannot be underestimated. Whether the US is a forerunner in this trend, I don't know, but still I am totally convinced that one of the first steps to undertake would be improving the quality of the environment (not only in a purely environmentalist meaning), which is often designed to mortify people into the dullness of waking up, working, eating, blindly absorbing TV and sleeping.
Apologies for the long and sometimes trivial post. There's a high degree of simplification, but I can clarify later if needed.
Last edited by Albieg, .
In fact I find quite strange that those who label the NYT simply as liberal fail to mention Judith Miller's run up to war. All her articles about WMD have been subjected to review since then and we know Judith had some other problems with the law...
I am utterly dissatisfied with the way the NYT dealt with Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and - to a lesser extent - Virginia Heffernan. They fail to apologise completely for major journalistic blunders. But if you have to counter an opinion, commentary or facts you always have to oppose different opinions, commentaries or facts, not tongue in cheek comments. That specific comment sounds ignorant to anyone who knows a bit of the recent history of the NYT, and a very bad way to conduct a debate.
Last edited by Albieg, .
I thought, "Who the hell is this? He's using his brain!"
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : typo correction
And who's the person most qualified to help him with such knowledge? A good lawyer. Lawyers don't only know law, they practice it. And in trials jurisprudence is less important than practice.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : Messed up, two hours of sleep :)
You're too much obsessed with eyeballs, atlantian. There are also some other delicate balls in the human body, including mine. Try to preserve them.
Don't think you're the only one who suffered. I could have my stories to tell too, but not about marijuana.
Edit: And plenty of them too, including an uncle falling into a river, drunk. And other close relatives. And friends, of course. In each case, I perfectly know what substances they had in their bodies.
I'd say, overall, that stupidity is much more of a problem at every age, and that your ideas are far from what I'd consider statistically a juvenile problem. Such as alcohol and subsequent reckless driving for youngsters, or violence. If you consider sex only a form of violence or a sure source of an unwanted pregnancy it's a wrong idea of yours, not mine. But that's way beyond the scope of this thread. Have you got some sensibly worded advice that could help him someway or not? If this thread has to live, it has to live that way.
I know. I'm sarcastic and tragically ironic, not stupid. And not certainly blind. But if sex and drugs are the dangers you see looming ahead I'd suggest to look a bit further. For instance, sometimes I fear Devo might be right.
sex-drugs. So the world is going that way for you. You're an optimist, I see. Good for you.
Same here. And I perfectly know what I'm saying.
No, and I won't plainly tell you what I see. It's against the forum rules. 
No. (if the last sentence was a question)
Glad you're going, I won't have to discuss my supposed immaturity (way off topic, don't you think?)
Me, and many others.
He asked for advice. He shouldn't say anything more than he has already in this forum, and I assume he's been honest about it. Otherwise, he'd have some bad advice. Your condemn won't improve or worsen anything since he has to deal with much more important judges than self-appointed ones, and your advices are simply non-existent.
The discussion could take an interesting turn, but I can tell you they're not idiots. Idiots are simply everywhere, but demonstrations could be painful for more than a person who considers himself sober. Let's avoid discussing about that.
For the record nobody's ever overdosed on weed, and you really have to make an enormous effort to find a marijuana related road accident in comparison to alcohol related road accidents, most of them absolutely dubious.
Yeah, drugs don't make you intelligent, this is widely recognised, but no matter how stoned some people are, if they're smart they will never be stupid like some people who don't need any kind of dope to be terminally stupid. And don't ask for examples.
Yeah, drugs don't make you intelligent, this is widely recognised, but no matter how stoned some people are, if they're smart they will never be stupid like some people who don't need any kind of dope to be terminally stupid. And don't ask for examples.
Last edited by Albieg, .
How acute. He's fifteen. If you want to ruin a life, send him in prison for three years.
Too much moralism indeed. I could talk about one of my best friends. I won't enter in any detail, but let's say kilograms, a decade ago, internationally.
More than two years in prison, not in Italy. If he got busted in the Netherlands, he would have paid a €500 in fines.
He doesn't regret it, although he obviously has nothing to do with drug trafficking anymore. He had some very personal and tragic reasons, but he doesn't pretend those reasons were good. He knew what he could risk and accepted it. He paid for it. The only fight he had in his entire life was in jail, with a heroin addict who was desperately trying to find a dose, shouting from the window. That guy got a raw beating.
He's one of the cleanest, most sensible persons I've encountered in my whole life, and for sure one of the best. No matter what he did, he can claim he harmed no one, and it's true.
Half a gram is nothing in Western Europe, and the intent to sell accusation would probably grant a reprimand for an over-zealous officer since the quantity is laughable even for extremely high quality stuff.
Alcohol kills - directly and indirectly - much more than marijuana. If some forum moralist ever got drunk in his life he should stop talking. He would have done much, much worse to him, and if he drove, to others.
Edit: reading Hankstar's post below, I agree: don't minimise, don't deny, show awareness, don't be defiant, accept without contradicting and find a lawyer with a good record in small drug dealing/personal possession defense if you can, to have first-hand professional advice.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Thank you very much for bringing a bit of civilisation to this thread. If you were talking about cars maybe I'd read your opinion again in a few months. In this case I won't, and I won't feel a particular sense of loss.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG