Have a break, have a Chit Chat - Page 7

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

IF-Stunnerz

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Not sure if you are saying that the countries on the banned list is not based on a bill that Obama signed into law. If you are saying that, you are incorrect. Please check on the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.

This one? https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

This one? https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text

That only listed Iraq and Syria even though I didn't traverse all links.

Here's a better one: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

Excerpt from the above link:

Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

IF-Stunnerz

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
IMO, US lost its sheen long time back. It's just a shell of its former self now.

Even though Hillary lost the electoral vote, she won the popular vote. Add to that, the noise about Russian "interference" in elections via Wikileaks, and liberals think they have a legitimate beef with the way the elections went down.

When Trump said during the debates that he may or may not accept the election results, liberals including Hillary raised a big hue and cry. After they lost, they tried every trick in the book to stop Trump from becoming the president (vote recounts, threats to electoral college members etc. ) Now-a-days, it's one rioting after another; one vandalism after another. They call it a "Movement". "Resist" or some crap like that. Thanks to their daily antics, and the influx of illegal aliens and refugees, US is resembling a 3rd world country now.

Who's the Indian equivalent of US liberals? INC?

I think you are being a bit too negative about the United States. I think it still is a good country. The country is still privileged with plenty of wealth and resources for infrastructure, we just need the right leadership to utilize it efficiently. We still enjoy a lot of freedoms and privileges not easily afforded to the rest of the world. No we do not have the opulence of the pre-depression twenties or the consumerism of eighties Reganomics - but we still have it good and don't appreciate it as much.

Politics and political opinion is still a clusterf**k. Everyone is nuts - left and right. There are far too few sane voices.

But you know ideological clashing is one of the better problems to have. A nation is most likely in deep shit if everyone buys into one ideology. I do not condone violence or threats, but resistance is vital in a democracy. No matter who is in power - the opposition must have the power and freedom to express themselves. Checks and balances - thats what democracy relies on. Too much ideological alignment eliminates the checks and balances.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 7 years ago

^^Well put, RTH. You are clearly an optimist.

The population density of US is around 33 people per sq. km. In comparison, India is at 398 people per sq. km. These are not as bad as say Hong Kong or Singapore or as good as say Australia or Canada. Again, it's all about preference, and for me, the fewer the better. Heck, I don't mind having an entire planet all for myself; of course, the planet comes with some fine print :)

I am not as confident about freedom as you are. Take Milo Yiannopoulos' case. He absolutely has the right to speak his mind anywhere he wants, whenever he wants, but liberals are having none of that. I chalk it up to liberal bigotry (again, that generalization excludes balanced folks with sane voices like you put it)

I have a suspicion that there could be a civil war, but maybe I am being overly dramatic.

Edited by K.Universe. - 7 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

IF-Stunnerz

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I am not as confident about freedom as you are. Take Milo Yiannopoulos' case. He absolutely has the right to speak his mind anywhere he wants, whenever he wants, but liberals are having none of that. I chalk it up to liberal bigotry (again, that generalization excludes balanced folks with sane voices like you put it)

The Berkeley situation was unacceptable. It is extreme events like this that discredits liberals.

I fall in the school of thought "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it". I believe in protecting free speech, so that I have a right to say what I want.

That being said "Milo should not speak on our campus" is also a protected free speech opinion. The administration has the final say. And if Milo speaks at the campus, people are free to carry both support and protest signs.

But the constant whining, inability to articulate the stance, lack of willingness to engage in debate and resorting to hooliganism when not getting their way is making the liberals look bad.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I have a suspicion that there could be a civil war, but maybe I am being overly dramatic.

I do not think you are too dramatic. Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand". We are divided. The cracks are deep and who knows when the structure will collapse. The civil war ended slavery though. My hope is that something good comes out in the end. Maybe it is a fools hope.

Quote

souro

@souro

IF-Veteran Member

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

I still can't understand why the Supreme Court had to interfere in BCCI's functioning. SC of India doesn't seem to get much judgement correct or on time, and now they seem to have wrecked an organisation that had at least helped in establishing an influential position for India in the cricketing world. And if SC had to interfere in a sporting body, why did they choose a relatively much better functioning body like BCCI instead of so many other utterly dysfunctional sporting bodies which are there in India.

I wonder what is the qualification of our judges. Unsuccessful advocates or something maybe.

Quote

souro

@souro

IF-Veteran Member

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I fall in the school of thought "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it". I believe in protecting free speech, so that I have a right to say what I want.

That being said "Milo should not speak on our campus" is also a protected free speech opinion. The administration has the final say. And if Milo speaks at the campus, people are free to carry both support and protest signs.

I find this line of thought disturbing. It has noble intentions no doubt, but I find it foolhardy and can lead to the downfall of a country.

If I believe in free speech, why would I want to protect something which actually talks about not allowing others to speak? Why would I want to protect something that I know (from their behaviour in other places) curbs free speech the instance they come to power? It's counter-intuitive. If I allow them to speak under the garb of free speech, I'm actually allowing them the space to mislead people by spreading their propaganda and their falsehoods. It'll create confusion and doubts in the mind of people and very few people can actually see the truth when surrounded by such chaos. Half of the population are of less than average intelligence who will definitely get misled as long as the propaganda is strong and good enough to influence them.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 7 years ago

^^ There is some confusion in this part of the world that is not able to clearly draw a distinction between inflammatory speech and hate speech that could incite violence.

Remember the thread we had on the subject of Charlie Hebdo and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad and whether that constitutes free speech? I argued that it doesn't on the grounds that it incites. While I think I am consistent in my arguments over the years, I don't think all liberals are; they bend rules according to their convenience.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

IF-Stunnerz

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

I can see why "opposition" to free speech as counter intuitive. I see it as that both sides should have equal say in opinion based issues.

Free speech is relative not absolute. We all censor/adjust/filter ourselves based on the situation we are in. Even though the constitution legally allows us to opine that our boss is an asshole - the boss will see otherwise.

A university exists to serve its student population. It is responsible to create an atmosphere and culture that caters to the students it serves. So if the school is going to host a speaker - it has to be open to listening to all student opinions in favor of or against the speaker and then make its decision.

Just like how you decide who gets to come to your house or party, I feel the collective student has a say in who comes to their campus.

Quote

souro

@souro

IF-Veteran Member

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades
I can see why "opposition" to free speech as counter intuitive. I see it as that both sides should have equal say in opinion based issues.
Free speech is relative not absolute. We all censor/adjust/filter ourselves based on the situation we are in. Even though the constitution legally allows us to opine that our boss is an asshole - the boss will see otherwise.

A university exists to serve its student population. It is responsible to create an atmosphere and culture that caters to the students it serves. So if the school is going to host a speaker - it has to be open to listening to all student opinions in favor of or against the speaker and then make its decision.

Just like how you decide who gets to come to your house or party, I feel the collective student has a say in who comes to their campus.

University, unlike house, is not a private property. It would be okay if a student says s/he doesn't agree with the views of a speaker, it's also okay if s/he asks others not to attend the lecture. But to say that the speaker shouldn't be allowed to speak in the university campus because of differences in opinions is misuse of free speech. Will it be acceptable if s/he asks for not allowing admission to certain student because that student's political views doesn't match with his/hers? Or a particular professor shouldn't be allowed to teach because s/he doesn't agree with the last article which the professor had written? I think not, it can never be acceptable unless the objection is based on some criminal record or what the student or professor or speaker is bringing to the table can be potentially destabilising for the university and threaten its existence.

This is why I'm against free speech to the extent that was practised in JNU. Allowing such speeches in the name of free speech, where the speech is calling for the destruction of society, country, killing of the population, it is actually speaking of murdering and enslaving free people, such speeches can never be allowed. If we allow them the space, then we are allowing the viewpoint of 'no free speech' to take root. If tomorrow they succeed in creating enough confusion and chaos, we might actually end up having no free speech in practice.

Quote

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 53

Have a break, have a Chit Chat - Page 7

Related Topics