Whamola's forum posts

#1 Edited by Whamola (131 posts) -

@Aurelito: Wait, what?

I really hope this is a joke. You DO realize that we imprison A LOT of innocent people, right? Just look at the West Memphis Three. They were given life for a murder they didn't commit and it took years and years before they were released, despite massive amounts of evidence proving their innocence, just because their local law enforcement didn't want to be embarrassed.

Prisoners should never be murdered unless their crime was so impossibly heinous that society cannot move on from it.

But there are political problems too. Mainly, for some well known prisoners, killing them would make them a martyr and inspire more people to lash out because of their death.

#2 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

Did they make Partly Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs into a movie?

I loved looking at that shark bite into that peanut butter and jelly boat.

#3 Edited by Whamola (131 posts) -

@Redbullet685: Well, I know in situations like this it's easy to want to remove the whole horrible incident from society, but putting this kid into a real jail will only further his corruption. He needs serious and professional help more than he needs to be put away for the rest of his life.

#4 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

@DonutFever: Well, now I NEED to at least mention it. Ha ha ha.

Basically, he was racist when he was young, considering black people to not be human. He was obsessed with giving people enemas. Slept nude with little girls, and was apparently a bit of a pervert.

That's not the bad part though.

"During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”"

As if that's not enough, he's at least partly responsible for the current situation in Kashmir, which is still the most likely source for a nuclear war:

"After the critical weakening of the British Empire by the First World War, and most particularly after the notorious massacre of Indian protesters at the city of Amritsar in April 1919, it became apparent even to the then controllers of the subcontinent that rule from London would come to an end sooner rather than later. It was no longer a matter of "if" but of "when." Had this not been the case, a campaign of peaceful disobedience would have stood no chance. Thus Mohandas K. Gandhi (sometimes known as "the Mahatma" in respect for his standing as a Hindu elder) was in a sense pushing at an open door. There is no dishonor in that, but it is exactly his religious convictions that make his legacy a dubious rather than saintly one. To state the matter shortly: he wanted India to revert to a village-dominated and primitive "spiritual" society, he made power-sharing with Muslims much harder, and he was quite prepared to make hypocritical use of violence when he thought it might suit him.

The whole question of Indian independence was interleaved with the question of unity: would the former British Raj be reborn as the same country, with the same borders and territorial integrity, and yet still be called India? To this, a certain rugged faction of Muslims answered "no." Under British rule they had enjoyed some protection as a very large minority, not to say a privileged one, and they were not willing to exchange this state of affairs for becoming a large minority in a Hindu-dominated state. Thus the sheer fact that the main force for independence - the Congress Party - was dominated by a conspicuous Hindu made conciliation very difficult. It could be argued, and indeed I would argue, that Muslim intransigence would have played a destructive role in any case. But the task of persuading ordinary Muslims to leave congress and to join with the partitionist "Muslim League" was made much easier by Gandhi's talk of Hinduism and by the long ostentatious hours he spent in cultish practices and in tending to his spinning wheel.

This wheel - which still appears as the symbol on the Indian flag - was the emblem of Gandhi's rejection of modernity. He took to dressing in rags of his own manufacture, and sandals, and to carrying a staff, and expressing hostility to machinery and technology. He rhapsodized about the Indian village, where the millennial rhythms of animals and crops would determine how human life was lived. Millions of people would have mindlessly starved to death if his advice had been followed, and would have continued to worship cows (cleverly denominated by the priests as "sacred" so the poor ignorant people would not kill and eat their only capital during times of drought and famine). Gandhi deserves credit for his criticism of the inhuman Hindu system of caste, whereby lower orders of humanity were condemned to an ostracism and contempt that was in some ways even more absolute and cruel than slavery. But just at the moment when what Indian needed was a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead. The crux of this unwelcome realization came in 1942, when the Imperial Japanese Army had conquered Malaya and Burma and was on the frontiers of India itself. Believing (wrongly) that this spelled the end of the Raj, Gandhi chose this moment to boycott the political process and issue his notorious call for the British to "Quit India." He added that they should leave it "To God or to Anarchy," which in the circumstances would have meant much the same thing. To those who naively credit Gandhi with a conscientious or consistent pacifism might wish to ask if this did not amount to letting the Japanese Imperialists to do his fighting for him.

Among the many bad consequences of the Gandhi/Congress decision to withdraw from negotiations was the opening it gave to Muslim League adherents to "stay on" in the state ministries which they controlled, and thus to enhance their bargaining positions when the moment for independence arrived shortly thereafter. Their insistence that independence take the form of mutilation and amputation, with western Punjab and eastern Bengal hacked away from the national body, became unstoppable. The hideous consequences endure to this day, with further Muslim-on-Muslim bloodbaths in Bangladesh in 1971, the rise of an aggressive Hindu nationalist party, and a confrontation in Kashmir that is still the likeliest provocation for a thermonuclear war.

There was always an alternative, in the form of the secular position taken by Nehru and Rajagopalachari, who would have traded a British promise of immediate postwar independence for a common alliance, on the part of both India and Britain, against fascism. In the event, it was in fact Nehru and not Gandhi who led his country to independence, even at the awful price of partition. For decades, a solid brotherhood between British and Indian secularists and leftists had laid out the case for, and won the argument for, the liberation of India. There was never any need for an obscurantist religious figure to impose his ego on the process and both retard and distort it. The whole case was complete without that assumption. One wishes every day that Martin Luther King had lived on and continued to lend his presence and wisdom to American politics. For "the Mahatma," who was murdered by members of a fanatical Hindu sect for not being devout enough, one wishes that he could have lived if only to see what damage he had wrought (and is relieved that he did not live to implement his ludicrous spinning-wheel program)."

There you have it. Basically, it's always worth looking at everything with a critical eye.

Oh, and I could bad-mouth Winston Churchill too, but that'll have to wait for a much later date (hint: he often said he hoped America would be attacked, and indeed, even took steps to ensure it happening, so he could count on our support.)

#5 Edited by Whamola (131 posts) -

@Gnomicidal: Yeah, sorry about that, I said something along the lines of "being crazy about guns is yet another bullet point in the long list of shit conservatives love that's detrimental to society" and that one Ayn Rand guy got all butt-hurt over something and started demanding examples and sources and accused the world of being liberally biased.

My point about the bows is that they can be used for hunting, and they wouldn't lead to as many school massacres because if a kid brought his dad's bow and arrow to school, he'd maybe peg one kid before he was tackled to the ground before he could queue up another arrow.

But yeah, guns should be banned, and this probably wouldn't have happened if people with kids weren't allowed to own guns at the very least.

#6 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

@DonutFever: Yeah, I had heard all that and more before, but I decided to look into it deeper, and I found a great book about it at my local bookstore (By Christopher Hitchens no less, so you know it's impeccably researched and written. I had no idea he ever wrote something like this.) I just finished reading it and it's great, I highly suggest everyone check it out.


It's pretty short too, so you can finish it in an hour or two.

Now I feel like I should mention how Gandhi was kind of a bastard too, ha ha ha.

#7 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

@PrivateIronTFU: Read what I wrote above. I know it's shocking but it seems to be the truth. I honestly did not believe it at first. I thiiiink there was even a short book written all about it, I'll see if I can find it.

I love you too bro...but not gay love. Christian Jesus says gay people eat children and suck the life force out of TOTALLY NOT CLOSETED republicans, so they're evil.

#8 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

@Still_I_Cry: Please, read what I am saying. I said abstinence only sex ed does not stop kids from having sex, and it doesn't, it has nothing to do with condom usage, I don't know why you're stuck on that.

My thesis is proof that I am not just an angry atheist, and I've actually done a lot of research into what Creationists believe. First off, Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design. That was even proven in a court case in Massachusetts where a group of parents were trying to get ID taught in school. And before you say "Well, liberal bias!", the presiding judge was conservative and appointed by the younger Bush. They even discovered that the ID text books were just old Creationism books with the word "Creationism" replaced with "Intelligent Design". Your point about God isn't true either. ID supports say it doesn't HAVE to be God, just some intelligent Designer. I "neglected" other facets of irreducible complexity because I assumed there would be someone getting upset that I was being too in depth (there was), and the other examples are even weaker than the flagellum one. The eye evolved at least 40 times independently in nature, and each one is as effective as the other. The Nautilus even has an open eye that works kind of like one of those old camera obscuras. Light sensitivity is similar. Specified complexity is a basic inability to understand how evolution works. There's an old arguement, "What good is half a wing!", well, it's useful because even though you can't fly with it, it can help decrease the speed of a fall, and it increases the surface area of your body so it's easier to stay warm. What I'm saying is, that if there's any mutation that's beneficial in any way, it has a chance of sticking around. These tiny changes slowly add up over countless generations, and you end up with wings and all sorts of crazy crap that seems too specific to be natural. Finally, it IS fair to dismiss Creationism (please don't call it a scientific theory if you don't know what a theory is in science), because it's untestable and has no actual evidence for it and is really just a bunch of baseless criticisms of evolution. That's like saying, "Well, how can something be a wave AND a particle? That means a wizard did it!"

Again, there's no way of knowing we have a soul in the way the religious think we do, therefore, it's untestable and isn't worth debating in science.

What is your obsession with "liberal bias" It doesn't matter what bias the source has as long as their sources are factual. I'm a liberal, I have a liberal bias, I say a majority of conservatives are creationists, I base that off the gallup poll. That doesn't make what I said untrue because it helps me prove a point, it just means that I'm a liberal, and I made a point.

Well, no, I was GOING to say that ALL cross-country bus companies are privately owned, but I'm not 100% sure if that's technically true. But even if it's not, I have never heard of a publicly owned bus company that does cross country, so...

You said I was putting on an act, I said it's not an act, and it's not really hard to be educated. That's all there is to it.

Cool, you can shoot a bow better than me. You still didn't understand the very basic point I was making. Bows are less dangerous than guns because you cannot fire them nearly as fast or (if you aren't specially trained, as was the case with these high school kids) or with as much accuracy.

Uh, the point of that statement was that you were insistent that I had not given you a list of the books I used as reference, and I agreed, but instead of giving you a giant list of weird uncommon books that would be hard to find, I gave you a simplified list. It was a courtesy, not me putting up an act. Don't be so defensive. Wait...You love Ayn Rand don't you. College Republican, reads "philosophy", I think I see where this is going...

Again, yeah, guess what, some people are liberals, and they write books. To you that makes them liberally biased, but that doesn't mean they can be removed from the record. A lot of conservatively biased people criticized Bill Clinton, and guess what, most of them were basically right! Liberally Biased would be someone like Michael Moore who lies and stretches the truth to make a point. None of those authors did that.

You're a poor college kid. I started out as a young republican like you, but I met a lot of people from different cultures, I was homeless and very poor for a while, I spent a lot of the time in The Jungle and saw how a lot of people actually live, I read the criticisms of my original party and I realized how backwards I was being. That's all there is to it really.

#9 Posted by Whamola (131 posts) -

No. Johnny Cage is not afraid to die, and Sub-zero is a Chinese Ninja Warrior, with a heart so cold. So you can see how there'd be a conflict of interest there.

#10 Edited by Whamola (131 posts) -

@Vodun: I wasn't comparing myself to Dickens (especially considering I don't write fiction), I was just saying that I find it a bit crazy that you think a few paragraphs, each concisely addressing points made by a person I was conversing with was too much to read.

Although, I find it funny you made simultaneously the nerdiest, most common, and most cliche literary reference possible. Tolkien took his time describing terrain because he had a very specific view of what the world he created should look like. The common complaint of "not enough action" is a valid one to make if you only read fantasy novels for basic entertainment, but it's really missing the point when dealing with literature. I mean, A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich would not have been good if it was mindless action. The sheer power of Solzhenitsyn's tale lies in its discussion of the mundane details of the prisoner's lives. It's haunting exactly because nothing happens. Also, I really don't like any of Tolkien's work.

Although I think the real issue here is that you're wrong. I brought up a lot of points, you either didn't understand them or didn't like them so now you're trying to ineffectively discredit me by saying I "use too many words"