dungeonbaby

as hope faded and the lights dimmed for you, i wonder if you had not regretted your vast pride and wished that instead of Cuba you had headed for New York - that evil city of the US Empire, and gotten first-rate care in one of those hospitals the inimitable Jews run. i wonder if the room did not smell like sulfur after you had breathed your last.

No, that's blaming the wrong party.

 

The Royal Army whoevers went there looking for trouble. And that's what happened. Mission accomplished.

who is blaming who and for what?

what mission was accomplished? what in blazes are you talking about? who are you defending?

What's happening isn't over yet. There's nothing that says this mess can no longer be properly taken care of.

tell that to the families of those who died. on both sides.

meantime...

Dear PNoy,

Please think before you speak.

Maybe. But how would we - or you - know you wouldn't criticize him for holding his tongue, though?

how would we know anything for sure if it didn't happen. in this case it happened, the administration failed, the criticism followed, the administration back-pedaled.

Stoker stars talented actors Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland), and Matthew Goode (Watchmen) who do not disappoint. this is a well-made film with ruinous characters and a gothic theme. great production design, extraordinary attention to detail, down to the buttons on a blouse or the containers of ice cream.

but watching this lushly-realized movie, i felt like i took part in villainy. it felt sickly indulgent which is strange because I liked Alfred Hitchcock Presents as a kid.

If he's exhausted all options in getting the Pinoy invaders from taking things too far and hasn't been able to convince them...and he clearly hasn't...what can he do?

he had not exhausted all options when he told Malaysia to go ahead and do what it needed to do. now Malacanang backpedals when the jets came out to play.

what can he do? he can hold his tongue and not say you're on your own, condolences.

Well, they did invade another country. If I was Malaysian, I'd consider those folks to be terrorists.

 

The Philippines cannot afford a war with another country. The resources are not there.

our president is not Malaysian. can he not watch out for his own countrymen first before lawyering for the other side?

off-topic naman kayo e. contrabida ka talaga nick.

why am i not surprised that instead of mediating for Filipinos, you tell Malaysia to do whatever it needs to do to Kiram's followers

we ask for clemency for Pinoys who are getting the death penalty in other countries. what's the diff?

i have no one favorite book but in keeping with the theme of your next question i'll say anne rice's Sleeping Beauty Trilogy...or her novel 'Belinda.'

i've not read 50 shades so i've no bet.

last book i bought was Epicenter by JC Rosenberg.

what one act solves almost all domestic disputes between you and your mate?

first instinct was to say yes he's no longer worthy of trust. then i remembered (some) people do change.

which thread would you recommend for laughs?

so Malaysia is now bombing Sabah. it'll be interesting to see the US weigh in on this, because technically (on paper) Sabah belongs to the Philippines, and the US is required to defend us.

if Malaysia says Sabah is theirs because they've had it for 25 years, and the world agrees with this, can other parts of the world now belong to the people who occupy it...such as...islands in the Spratlys?

Question: may nakatakbo na ba sa inyo dito sa ultra? may bayad ba? shower rooms? details pls. thanks.

may maliit na bayad sa entrance ng track, di ko na matandaan kung P15 o P50, basta small fee lang. may shower rooms pero kung ako ikaw, sa bahay na ako maliligo. you can leave your things in the car or on the bleachers, not sure pero parang walang lockers.

medyo luma na yung track at di patag sa isang banda pero madaming mahuhusay na runners sa umaga at sa hapon, kaya nakakagalak tumakbo. dito rin ata ginaganap yung mga running camps ni coach rio.

so...my knees are a problem. i actually dread walking down steps in heels now, because it feels wrong and my knees get creaky. when i run on pavement, i have to slow down and step up onto a sidewalk to avoid shooting pain. i know i'm not supposed to do lunges or squats so to build strength i do leg presses, extensions, and curls instead. but i love to dance and when i do it messes up my knees all over again. augh.

when i sweat after a hard session (at the gym/on pavement/in the rain/whatever)

what are your thoughts on women's killer heels?

if that stranger was Christian Bale haha

what clubs did you join in grade school/elementary?

Ma'am before you get all worked up, let me try to clear things up regarding the use of quotation marks. First off let me attach for your reference the original post I made (Post 233). You will notice that I did not use any quotation marks when I substituted my own words for the original words contained in the article.

Second, I used quotation marks in post 234 as a way to highlight my original posts, to highlight the actual words used in the article and finally I used quotation marks to highlight your own reply. I DID NOT use any deception when I used quotation marks to highlight my original statement, the actual words used in the article, and your own reply.

 

The use of quotation marks was for your own benefit. Since the discussion had gotten really long, I thought I might try to help you understand my points better if I highlighted previous statements I made with the use of quotation marks. So you could clearly differentiate what was previously written from the current statements I was making. I would have used a color highlighter or even changed the color of the fonts but I couldn't get these to work. Hence the use of quotation marks.

 

I hope this clears things up.

you're right, the original had no quotation marks. my mistake.

We will probably never know the truth regarding the actual incidence of crime in the US because of the vague, confusing, and oftentimes conflicting data submitted by various government agencies, made even more complicated with the way media highlights or downplays these reports. In that sense I believe public perception will always prevail over "facts."

 

If you think my stats were incomplete, then naturally I respect this view. Many may agree with my analysis many won't. That's what debate is all about. I already mentioned to you early on that many disagreements occur in the medical, scientific, political, religious, etc. fields. It's all a matter of perception, of appreciation of data presented, of certain biases a person may have but won't admit or even cognitive of, of pre-conceived notions (I'm sometimes guilty of this) and a host of other factors that can affect the way a person stands on a certain issue. That said, I now consider this issue closed. Thanks for the interesting discussion Ms. Dungeonbaby. Hope to hear more of your opinions in other forums.

how in the world can perception prevail over facts? what kind of debate are you hoping to have if all arguments are based on feeling and perception? if i feel a person committed a crime, can that person be jailed or put to death over my perception?

your stats are incomplete and old. there is no contesting that. to show homicide rates today, you obviously need to go beyond 1990.

no, it's an excellent question. and no, if i knew how much bloodshed there would be i would've negotiated with the secessionists. slavery was on its way out in many southern states anyway. but yeah, Lincoln was still the man.

which thread on mtc is a bit funky?

oops.

considering how great the man was, and that it was a Spielberg movie...it was just okay. Daniel Day Lewis was superb, direction...not so much.

rating yourself against Lincoln, the man - how well would you do?

This is what I wrote: "It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's."

 

This is what the original article contained (verbatim)"...America is more violent today than at many times in its past. But it is no more violent than it was during most of the 1970's."

 

So in short, I tweaked the article a bit, using my own words in place of the original text. I may have embelished it a bit but I think my use of words pretty much reflects the spirit of the original text.

 

This is how you wrote it: "well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?"

 

I'll leave it to you on whether to debate the semantics on this one. For me this issued is closed.

sir, you can't quote a report directly, change the words, AND enclose the passage in quotation marks as if that was the original text. it's deceptive at the very, very least.

the issue is closed only because it is irrelevant to the thread topic in that there are so many other factors involved in crime statistics. as it is, neither of us can directly link it to America's decline. i still maintain your stats were incomplete.

Me ignore your posts? Perish the thought. I enjoy this discussion because it provides mental stimulation which, I heard, helps reduce the risk of Alzheimers. But my main problem is time. I can only reply when I'm not too busy. BTW if you don't mind my asking are you a professor?

just staving off the alzheimer's like you.

thanks for the free meal?

did you leave any fat, tasty seals for me?

feeling sharky?

lol

Anyway the article starts off with the statement that, almost without exception, Americans believe violent crime is increasing. Not unlike my own personal observation. The report mentions that to a certain extent, particularly in the short term, this observation is valid. Violent crime did rise between 1985 and 1990.

 

The article went on to say that what really worries Americans is not the short-term trend but the feeling that violent crime has been increasing steadily over a very long time and that in the future, this will increase even more. Many people associate this increase in crime with drugs, an increasingly hedonistic mindset, declining academic standards, etc. And this is precisely what I've been trying to express until you started bombarding me with all those statistics. Anyway I digress..

 

Questions about whether traditional means of containing violence have broken down are what's important according to the article. It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's.

 

An accurate index in measuring long-term trends in violence is the murder rate. Like I correctly opined earlier, the chance of being murdered in the 50's and 60's was relatively low by todays standards. This doubled between 1964 and 1974 and stayed high until 1980.

 

Then unexpectedly, the murder rate declined significantly between 1980 and 1985, according to the article. Towards the late 1980's the rate climbed again. In 1989, the murder rate was higher than the periods 1983 to 1988 as well as the periods 1950's until 1972 but still lower than the murder rate from the period 1972 to 1982. A bit confusing there in my opinion.

 

All these figures aside, the general feeling of Americans was that America has become a much more dangerous place to live in today. That too is my perception.

 

One reason for this perception is that media, particularly those found in New York and Washington DC. sometimes reports crime statistics arbitrarily. When violent crime rates went down in the early 80's many media practioners assumed that the decline was only temporary and gave crime reporting very little air time. They downplayed the issue.

 

The skewed way the media reported crime rates naturally molded public opinion regarding the perceived increasing crime rate. Admittedly, the article says that crime rates today are actually the same even if the number of crimes increased because population also increased. Murder rates as a function of an increase in population remain the same. Which is what I think you were trying to point out.

 

Suffice to say that my perceptions that crime is on the rise are shared by a lot of other people.

i placed in bold where you give me feelings and perceptions, not fact.

i underlined where your data shows that you are only looking at rates until 1990 at the latest. as i said, the peak was the 80s and since then the homicide rate has declined.

i italicized where you actually supported my statements. see how much we agree on?

and that sentence that's both in bold and underscored...well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?

The article says that America has a much higher rate of violent crime than other developed countries. Its history is steeped in violence much of which is glorified in films. This heritage of violence has been there as far back as the days of slavery. The American Civil War is probably the bloodiest war Americans have ever been involved in. With war comes violence and this violence is essentially internalized and evenutally institutionalized.

while the American Civil War was terrible in the number of lives lost, it was America's bloodiest partly for the archaic way in which it was fought - not because Americans were particularly violent. if you want to make a fair comparison then compare America to the rest of the world during that time. compare her to France and the terrors of the French Revolution that was just pure evil in many ways.

You also stated, and I quote: "one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population" On the contrary, the article states and I quote: "Almost without exception, Americans believe that violent crime is increasing." Also, and I quote directly from the article: "Nonetheless, most Americans are convinced that America has become much more dangerous."

 

So it isn't a very tiny segment of America's population. Most Americans believe that crime is on the rise. I agree with this observation which, I admit, may have been caused by media's reporting of the news.

 

And as to your statement about America's societal degenaration being dependent on the assumption that this phenomenon happens only in America and not to the rest of the world, I again quote from the article:

 

" America certainly has more violence than other rich countries. Murder rates are far higher in the United States than in Europe, Japan, or even Canada. We also have more rapes, robberies, and assaults than other rich countries. But this is nothing new. Crime rates have always been much higher in America than in other affluent nations." Violence, particularly homicide occurs in other parts of the world as well but America far surpasses these countries in terms of murder rates. But like the article states, this is nothing new.

 

As far as shock and horror goes, I think Americans still react to horrendous crimes with shock and horror. So on this count, I don't think this should be factored into the "societal degeneration of America."

if you keep unintentionally bolstering my arguments like this you'll be in my corner in no time. yes. perception is one thing, fact quite another. see how easy it is to hold hands with me?

as for America being more violent than other rich countries...you may want to consider that statistics like this will depend on wait...wait for it...you guessed it! - methodology. so if america has more reported crime, then of course, it will have higher crime rates. i can believe japan and canada have less crime than the US - japan is a more homogeneous society and canada well...is canada lol. as for europe...with all the crime in britain now you might want to rethink these perceptions of yours.

Ms. Dungeonbaby, I think we've pretty much covered this topic and I think we should move on. Many of those who read the foregoing may be bored with our discussions and honestly, I think this is taking too much of our valuable time. Let's just leave this discussion and call it a truce. Deal?

tell you what, you're more than welcome to ignore my posts. don't worry about the other readers here, no one reads anything beyond 5 paragraphs long. and even then, that's a mental stretch. i actually read your posts and with care, and for that alone i wouldn't ignore me if i were you.

I'm sorry I only noticed this part of your post now. Yes certainly it is not disrespectful to ask someone to clarify his/her views. I'm glad you did because like you said, if you ignored the post, then that would be disrespectful. Thanks for not ignoring my posts.

 

Ok as to your question 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.'

 

I'm sorry, but I'm at a total loss of words why this phenomenon seems to be on the rise. You mentioned in a previous post that this could be attributed to increasing cases of mental illness and the failure to diagnose and treat such illnesses. But the question still remains: why is mental illness on the rise? is it because of disintegrating family values? rejection of a belief in God? or some other sinister reason that even the most seasoned psychologists cannot answer? On this count I think your guess is as good as mine.

now this...this is worthy of reflection.

Read this article Ms. dungeonbaby http://prospect.org/...rime-increasing

As I mentioned, conclusions are based on how data were gathered, analyzed and interpreted. Different methodology will result in different conclusions. Reporting statistics is not as clear cut as one might expect. Many variables used by one agency may be ignored by another and vice versa. There's a lot of gray area and even experts cannot agree among themselves which report more accuarately represents the truth.

your link doesn't seem to be working. kindly post the relevant data here instead or summarize its main points for the readers here, Mr. maxiev.

i think readers of the PEACE threads know that numbers can be influenced by how data is gathered. when you said that FBI data would be more credible, I looked at FBI data and invited you to do the same.

your quote shows the rates from between 1973 to 1988 only, which would be about the time that the homicide rate would peak. after that it declined until 2011. besides, we were talking about homicides, not aggravated assaults or robberies. again, how do your figures support your opinions? don't get me wrong, you can opine if you want and you certainly don't have to defend your opinions if you don't want to, but then you can't complain about data or posts that run contrary to your opinions.

The incidence of school shootings seems to be on the rise today (at least from where I'm standing) vis-a-vis those rampages in the 60's. You may have a different opinion insofar as this observation goes. Your statistics may bear you out while mine may support my beliefs. Tell you what. You respect my opinion and I respect yours. Fair enough?

i don't believe i said that school shootings weren't on the rise, i said notoriety is relative. i might agree with you yet. what the FBI figures show is that the overall homicide rate has dropped. which statistic is more relevant to the peace and order situation? i tend to go with the overall crime rate rather than isolated shootings.

You want to know how school shootings tie in with the thread topic "End of the American Century?" The American empire seems to be imploding from the inside as mentioned by Ryuji Tanaka and which you seem to agree with. Well what symptoms should one look for when citing this observation?

to answer i'll just quote myself (sounds pompous, i know, but really i'm just lazy):

anyway, mass shootings are a different matter. i think this has more to do with a deterioration of traditional values, the decreased central role of family, and a lack of focus on proper diagnosis of and response to mental illness.

we can discuss that further if you want. right now i'm just a sloth - another example of moral deterioration right there. not that i'm American.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the symptoms is the peace and order situation of a nation. Well the seeming rise in school shootings would fall under peace and order wouldn't it? You may disagree that school shootings is on the rise and I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.

 

As far as counter intuition goes, yes you're right. Counter intuition is not the same as being right or wrong. I simple said "IT SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE" That's another opinion of mine which I wish you would respect.

 

And yes I did read the article you cited.

school shootings may be on the rise, i've not looked at the data yet so my opinion on that would be limited by the sensationalized coverage school shootings get.

is the overall homicide rate on the rise? no. both answers are relevant to the peace and order situation of america. but like i said in an earlier post, one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population. for this phenomenon to reflect America's societal degeneration it would have to 1) significantly increase in number in a short period of time, 2) be isolated to America and not happen in the rest of the world, and 3) the public's reaction to them would have to be less than shock and horror.

asking you to clarify your views is not disrespectful, is it? if i didn't respect an opinion i wouldn't be asking the owner of said opinion a follow-up question, i'd be ignoring his post. it surprised me that you read the article and yet did not make the data i cited irrelevant to the discussion right there. you see, sir, the question is not 'why doesn't the decreasing crime rate reflect the moral degeneration that seems to be happening in America?' the question should be 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.