"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison

***

LDPVTP: do you think that the social sciences are delusional?

i think psych is not bad, pretty stable
the rest are dubious
it's like, the more stats there are, the more okay it is, and the converse.

Me: the delusional people will poke holes at the stats :P

or conclude that since stats are not 100% right, they're 100% wrong
haha

LDPVTP: it's horrific when there are no stats

Me: not everything can be measured lah

LDPVTP: you get weirdly spiritual people praying over their academic articles

oh.yeah. not everything can be measured. unfortunately academia is about measuring everything
so.

Me: praying?

LDPVTP: or at least they sound like they're praying
"may the human race be good now"
"because i have found some weird unrelated fact that proves absolutely nothing, but that faintly indicates that the stars are aligned"
"and thus I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. and i believe the human race is essentially good. so let us all be good now."

Me: right.
what've you been reading

LDPVTP: social work

so, why am i studying something that doesn't even appear to take itself seriously?
(in some aspects)

Me: I think it helps if you realise many people are not interested in studying their discipline
but in pushing their personal agenda

LDPVTP: that's very sad
very very sad

i mean, it's not sad that that happens
but it's sad that faculties actually spend money sponsoring such stuff

Me: now you know why funding is so scarce for the arts and social sciences

LDPVTP: justly so.

bleah. BLEAH.

and all the fellas who actually try to do something worthwhile in the arts and social sciences, they get crowded out by the idiots


Someone: anyway it bugged me that he didnt walk me out/ send me out
even though i said "it's ok, just sleep"

why are guys so dense

Me: cos you said it's ok
... women

Someone: really ah

are men like that?
coz i felt hurt that he didnt care
after all i "did" for him

sigh

... [another anecdote]

thing is
i want a guy who treats me well
not use me as a sexual outlet

im sure it's a "...women" thing
but it's true

Me: you want a guy who will be psychic and know what you want
and you don't have to tell him

and when you tell him rubbish because you want to be 'nice', he will override your wishes and autonomy and oppress you with patriarchy and do what you /really/ want

Someone: that too :P


Someone else: i won't find myself supporting any external interference against a regime, no matter how brutal - unless of course that regime is pig-headed to invade another country.

as you can see from cambodia, the khmer rouge was toppled and the horrors of their war crimes didn't even come into consideration when the US and her allies imposed sanctions against Vietnam.

Me: does that mean you shouldn't support vietnamese intervention?

Someone else: you have to understand that the khmer rouge troops went into vietnam without their permission, so my case is that i support vietmanese intervention.
since it was the khmer rouge who invaded vietnam first.

Me: so the world shouldn't intervene in darfur
the world shouldn't have intervened in rwanda
the world shouldn't have entered east timor
the world shouldn't have intervened in the balkans civil war

Someone else: that is my stance.

Me: so it doesn't matter that lots and lots of people are dying

Someone else: you can sell arms to the oppressed parties.

Me: so if the PAP started cracking down in Singapore, throwing people into jail, torturing people etc, you wouldn't support any intervention?

Someone else: yes.
because you just don't know the motive behind that kind of intervention.

Me: so why endorse any forms of altruism?
close down charities. withdraw NGO licenses. stop helping other people.

would you have called Singapore Syonan-to from 1942-1945?
Singapore was Japanese by right of conquest

I do not subscribe to the school of thought that says that it's okay if Saddam Hussein kills 100,000 Kurds, but outrageous if the US kills 100 Iraqis when invading.

Just because you belong to Group X does not give you the right to oppress members of Group X.

Someone else: there is a big difference between charities, NGO licenses and help and ARMED intervention.

Me: between a million people dying and some nebulous foreign agenda, I'll take the latter anyday

Someone else: a million people dying and foreign agenda...the two are not mutually exclusive.

as to whether singapore should be called syonan to because the japanese conquered it...the situation is not that simple - because the british and the japanese have plenty to cover themselves in shame wrt singapore governance.

i do not say it is ok for Saddam to kill 100k kurds but outrageous if the US kills 100 iraqis - i am opposed to killing unless under extreme circumstances.

Me: even if an act is not well-intentioned, if it brings about good outcomes it can be praised
the free market is a big example

that's not the point
it's about accepting the right of conquest, force and coercion
which dictators essentially have over their population
just that they're native instead of foreign. which doesn't make a difference

I think some killing is acceptable to avoid even more killing
between 1975-9, the Khmer Rouge killed between 1 and 3 million Cambodians you know?

Someone else: well - if the population of a nation doesn't stand up strongly enough against their dictators it's their own fault. remember the familiar refrain "Singaporeans deserve their government if they don't speak up against it"?

the point here is not of whether the dictator is a native or foreigner, but whether the populace accepts the dictator [whether at gunpoint or not is irrelevant]

in one word - sovereignity.

Me: if you get shot if you stand up is it your fault if you don't?
if a woman doesn't resist strongly enough when she's raped, is it her fault?

there're many types of coercion and consent
just because a populace doesn't rise up in revolt doesn't mean it consents

what is sovereignty?
sovereignty lies with the people. if the ruler is illegitimate, he is violating their sovereignty

Someone else: the vietnamese invasion of the Khmer Rouge-era cambodia may be acceptable to you, but i have never heard the US understanding that vietnam did a good deed to the cambodian people.

Me: you think the cambodians enjoyed being slaughtered by the khmer rouge?
they WELCOME the invasion

I think they would say now that it's a good thing
and does it matter what the US thinks?

I think that saying that people get the governments they deserve is similar to saying that women who get raped are to blame for it - in both cases the victims probably could have done something to prevent their misfortune (being gunned down by soldiers in the former case and carrying around pepper spray/not being consumed with guilt and self-loathing in the latter), but to throw the blame wholly or even predominantly on the victim is not only wrong but grossly immoral. I have slightly more sympathy to the school of thought that says that people deserve the governments they vote for - if someone wants to be raped repeatedly there's not much you can do to help them.

Someone else: you may wish to know that 99.5% of the people voted for saddam hussein, and more than 50% of the people voted for Slobodan Milosevic before the revolution in the former Yugoslavia.

And we are not talking about individuals, but entire populaces including the military.
true, a populace not rising up in revolt does not mean consent, but it does mean respect (towards gun barrels).

Me: HELLO
you don't know that saddam rigged his elections ah?!?!

the military usually benefits from the regime
because they can topple it
so they're paid well, cossetted etc

so if someone comes up to you with a gun and goes: "your money or your life" you respect his gun lah
so you won't blame the police for not intervening

Someone else: of course i know that saddam rigged his elections - then again, so do many political parties in power - just take any ex-Soviet state for an example. where do you want to draw the line in defining a "legitimate" power?

there is a difference between a police force and a country fighting another which oppresses her civilians.

Me: yeah I don't consider the central asian states legitimate either

Someone else: but you certainly do have to ask permission from those state organs to enter their premises, legitimate leaders or otherwise. for all the contempt he probably has against Tian Shwe, the UN official still had to get his permission to see Aung San Suu Kyi.
and by getting such permission, you are in fact giving them official legitimacy.

Me: unfortunately
UN nuclear inspectors also need permission from iran or north korea to enter facilities

but this is because of necessity

Someone else: exactly.

Me: so the alternative is not to deal with them?
so if the red cross ministers to the sick and wounded somewhere it gives them legitimacy?

Someone else: sorry, i do not get your "red cross" comparison.

in any case, when it comes to dealing with countries, the equation is simply thus:

who's got the guns and bullets = legitimacy.

the alternative is simple - avoid doing business with that regime you consider illegitimate.
especially military and police hardware and software

Me: the red cross needs permission to work in a country
so like that it legitimises everyone

so why do guns and bullets not work for international legitimacy
and guns and bullets is an extremely archaic notion of legitimacy

Someone else: unfortunately, yes...who would the red cross deal with if a crisis were to hit thailand - the legitimate PM thaksin or surayud?

actually, i thought that was the entire line of argument i had all along - guns and bullets equate to legitimacy. and going back to myanmar, that makes the SLORC the legitimate rulers [unless, hopefully, enough elements in the tatmadaw suddenly develop a conscience].

Me: well according to you the very act of dealing with them legitimises them

ok
well at least you're consistent

Someone else: well - actually i see the best way out is to give zero interference, and not invade the country.

the most spectacular series of toppled dictatorships in modern history [in the form of the eastern bloc] was down to the fact that the gorbachev-led government refused to quell the popular uprisings when the dictators in the USSR's satellite states asked them precisely to do so.

of course, speaking of this, i am reminded that the poles are still sore at the soviets because the soviets gave zero interference to aid the Warsaw uprising during World War II.
which is still a very sore point the poles have against the russians - never mind Katyn and nearly 50 years of communist terror.


Someone: *nickname: *Thesis supervisor's name*, i won't let you lose face one*

okay
don't worry

i am almost as in th ebad shape as u

Me: so you're going to let *** lose face ah

Someone: yep
most prob he's going to lose face lah

Me: nvm lah
give you B wont lose face one!

Someone: who?

WAH LAOZ!
gabriel seah
thanks hor

Me: nevermind lah
next time can work in bank

Someone: hahaha
why u say that

Me: Maybank

Someone: hhahahahaaha

fuck u gabriel
fuck u


Someone else: obama > clit
:P

Me: erm
ok

I see you're very horny now