Here are some questions and speculations about DARIA that I hope inspire intelligent discussion.
1) If Quinn and the Fashion club are so into fashion why do they always where the same clothes to school?
2) What does Daria care about? What does she have strong opinions on? I can only recall a few
a) she is against book burning and even yelled at her TV set when they were doing it (Referred to but not seen in THE OLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL)
b) she thinks that America should boycott countries that abuse human rights, but that America will find loopholes for big trading partners like China (THE NEW KID)
3) Given that she doesn't care much about things, why does she do well in school? Could be the competition.
4) Sometimes the funniest part of Daria are the MTV commercials. The contrast to Daria's cynicism is startling. Best example: when I saw THE LOST GIRLS, which had Daria defining `edgy' as a concept totally made up by advertisers, and then a mountain dew commercial about how mountain dew is dangerous (skateboarding, etc.)
5) I know that Daria was originally on Beavis and Butthead. Were Quinn and/or Darias parents ever seen on B&B ? Did Daria have the same personality she has now?
6) Why is there SO MUCH Daria fan fiction? Gee, I think The Simpsons has Less! The only series that I can think of that has more is Star Trek. (Incidentally, I've read alot of it and its mostly pretty good.)
7) In ESTEEMERS Daria annouces to the whole assembly that Quinn is her sister. How come in later episodes Quinn still pretends Daria is not her sister? (Perhaps the classmates attention span is such that they have all forgotten Daria's annoucement.)
8) Does Trent like Daria? Does he know that Daria has a crush on him? One thing about the Daria=Trent pairing---- Trent doesn't read or even go into book stores (PIERCED) which I assume Daria wouldn't like.
9) Does Daria have any ambitions? What would be good futures for her? (One of the Fan Fiction pieces has her as the executive producer of SICK SAD WORLD)
10) Personal opinion--- I like ALL the episodes, but I prefer those where she acts smart to those where she acts stupid (only RUN JANE RUN and PIERCED come to mind as ones where she acted badly).
11) Do Teenagers really talk the way they do on Daria? If so, I'm jiggy to that.
12) Do Teenagers really act the way they do on Daria? If so, I am most definitly not Jiggy to that. (Note--- I am 39 years old, male, married, no kids, so I am out of Touch with Teenagers.)
Umm, I don't know of any but I am sure she has some strong opinions
I can't comment, They havnt shown Season 3 in Canada yet
Hell, Look at the US, It has the worst human rights record in the Western World, Hell Cuba has a better record. Police Burtality and Capital Punishment mostly but there are other issues
I don't care about school, I am honor roll
That makes sence
She is virutaly the same, Her family is new
Because, People have imaginations
Quinn is braindead, And teens have almost non-existant attention spans
Trent is for all intents and purposes a bum, It is just a crush
Doesnt she want to be a writter?
She wasnt acting as much stupid as she was nerotic
I am a teenager, I dont have a clue in hell what Jiggy Means
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:36:41 -0700, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from TDH , and it said:
<snip derogitory comment>
Actually, besides completely taking over the local economy, which involves an initial confiscation of private property, violence against those who resist this initial transferance, and other "start up" problems (of which even the US has some notorious skeletons in it's revolutionary closet, such as the confiscation of loyalist property and harrassment of loyalists), what has Cuba done to it's people? I know about the things that went on in the Soviet Union, and Maoist China; my knowledge of Cuba is much more limited, probably a bad thing, considering how close Cuba is to us.
Still, even without this knowledge, I seriously doubt Cuba has a better human rights record than the US. Perhaps equivalant, at best, but not better.
In other words, would you care to elaborate, Trevor? You should know that many, if not most Americans (particularly the older generation) will balk at any suggestion that any communist country is anything other than the evil playground of the Devil. ;) I am not so much like this; look what happened in Yugoslavia after communsim fell. It may not be the best answer, but it's a better answer than Democracy in those parts of the world where most of the populace still thinks of ethnic hatred as a "good, righteous thing." In such places, democracy is little more than a tyranny of the majority.
To continue my rant, I think the issue is so complex that no one man, or country, is going to have a quick and easy answer to the problems in Kosovo. We could get in there, grab Milosovic, rebuild the country, set up a democratic government, and it's very likely that as soon as we turn out back on them, they'll go right on with killing each other. I really don't think it's the US's place to act as GloboCop(tm). There's this concept, it's called "soverignty." I think doing away with this concept is a Bad Thing (tm).
Voting isn't everything. Some people put health, education, employment etc higher up their list of priorities. Apart from suffering caused by the trade embargo, the Cubans are better off under Castro than they were under the previous regime. You should realise you have a very US- centric view on this, and the US stands very much alone in the world in its attitude to Cuba.
A rather dismissive statement, don't you think? Also irrelevant, an under 18 year old may be immature, but how does that make him/her "free" if they haven't the same "freedom" as those over 18? It doesn't, therefore nobody is free all their lives.
Heh, I feel compelled to make some mention of the effort I have had to make to buy some records I wanted.... <g>
That wasn't my point. You said "their whole life". I said that few people have freedom all their life, because you can't vote 'til you're about 18 in most places. I wasn't saying the people of Cuba are free, just that nobody here or in the US is free *all their life*. FWIW I know little about Cuba and have avoided commenting on that for this reason. I think the US makes a bigger deal out of Cuba, and also I stopped watching the news when I was fourteen because I figured that the saying "ignorance is bliss" was probably true.
That's what the Cuban Missile Crisis was all about. The world was on the brink of nuclear war over the issue.
The Cuban issue is largely politics though. There are a lot of Cuban expatriates living in south Florida whose opinions on the issue form a big component of presidential politics. They've made a life for themselves here and are every bit Americans but they still have a connection with and an interest in the island. Any president who proposed to normalize relations with a Cuba with Castro in it would do so at his political peril. Post-Castro Cuba is another matter. Who knows what will happen?
The Cuban embargo illustrates the futility of trade embargoes ("The New Kid"). The embargo has been in place for more than 30 years and has yet to yield tangible results WRT the stated objectives. By now it should be quite evident that it simply isn't going to work. The actual extent of the Cubans' suffering, since they can't trade with the U.S., seems to be that they can't get parts for a '56 Buick. So what? No one else can either now! Even Rush Limbaugh would like for the embargo to be lifted as he covets the Cuban cigars. Trade restrictions hurt both parties. I suspect that the embargo has only strengthened Castro's hand. Free trade with free countries (without bothering to adequately define that term) can only bring freedom to non-free countries as the inhabitants discover what the world is like beyond their own borders. Free trade will enhance human rights around the world. The more you know about how other people do things the more choices you have to make. Free trade is not only good business, it's good politics and it's morally supportable.
The issue isn't food, or health care, it's about management. We can all agree that people have needs that must be satisfied. The big, historical, worldwide debate is over who can best manage the resources to fill those needs. It's a simple bipolar debate: Some people think that decisions should be centralized with one guy (or a few) making all the decisions on allocation of resources. Other people believe that such decisions should be decentralized and made closer to the work site. That's it! The great debate that has almost brought the world to the brink of nuclear war centers on this point. This issue that has brought the untimely death of uncounted souls is fundamentally one that is debated routinely in corporate boardrooms and in business schools but can't be satisfactorily resolved by politicians.
Personally, I'm in favor of decentralized decision-making, not just by American heritage, but also because it's actually scientifically supportable. While the idea of centralization might seem appealing and more efficient on the face of it, in practice it's actually less efficient. The economists call it "dis- economies of scale." When an organization reaches a certain size, as almost any government must already have done, the problems of managing such a large organization makes things less efficient. It's possible for an organization to become TOO large. Large corporations recognized this fact and intentionally de- centralize themselves buy sub-dividing themselves into divisions. Sometimes they intentionally spin off business segments or sell them in order to reduce themselves to a manageable size. I think it would be wise for governments to follow this example.
Further, by decentralizing there is a diffusion of "error". Humans, no matter how smart they think they are, make mistakes. When the owners of a "Mom & Pop" business makes an error, they are the only ones who suffer. When the CEO of a large corporation makes a mistake then the company and its employees suffer. When the head of a government makes a mistake the entire country suffers, sometimes the entire world. Putting all your decision-making eggs in one basket enhances the opportunity for disastrous mistakes. These decisions aren't usually that complex. Even the stupidest among us can usually handle most of them. Some people consider their intelligence to be so significant, so much greater than that of their fellows, that they figure that they should be the ones make decisions for everyone else. I think that in fact it shows a defect in intelligence. If they're really that smart then they're wasting their talent by micro-managing everyone elses life but I suspect that it's largely self- delusion. Only a fool would think that way.
Some people think that decisions should be centralized
I agree that the debate is bipolar, in that there are two extremes, however I don`t agree that the the real debate is now, over which extreme is best. in my personal opinion centralised activity or managment and the dispersed decentralised sort have different strengths, and weakneses. The great failed "experiments" in centralisation, imo, did not fail because they used centralised philosophy per se, but because they insisted on using centralisation exclusively....I am certain that a similar experiment in using de-centralised managment exclusively, would fail also . It would first splinter into interest groups which would engage in conflict and power struggles untill a centralised control of some sort was re-established. Incidentaly the new regime would be established by force... and almost certainly not be democratic in nature I find people decrying one or other approach, strongly a little unsettling All the sucsesfull civilizations on earth have used a mixture of centralised control and managment of resourses, hand in hand with decentralised managament.
No society has sucesfully abanded centralized managment of resourses. and it is hard to see how anything using this approach could remain a "thing" However if one did you can rest assured that "things" will rush in to fill the power vacuum left by a abandonment of this appraoch Nature abhors.ect ect :-)
There is no evidence that one approach is "better" than the other, but imho, a lot of evidence that neither can be used to the exclusion of the other.
The problems have been perhaps caused by one camp deciding that one approach was the "truth", however many americans are just as adamant about de-centralising They are equally in error imo.
"Efficient" in what sense? (my use of welfare as an example of centraliszed managment will be explained shortly) For instance abandoning welfare may from an economic viewpoint, seem more "efficient" ..ie less tax burden on commerce ect.ect.. However you may well find yourself encountering "losses" that can`t be explained or predicted in ledger books.For instance large portions of the population *may* become diseased or incapable of work. There may be insurection...and continous costly blockages to trade.These are the things that centralised managment *can* deal with that decentralised managment is inefective at sorting out. Welfare is a good example of centralised managment because it is in "no particular interest groups, interests" to resolve these problems , but it is ironicly in ALL these groups interest simultaneously. It is also in all these groups interest not to be one of the "mugs" that invests in sorting the problem out. Centralised managment bypasses this dilema by making one organisation responsible for for this stuff
The economists call
To an extent i agree...but really what you have now is independent centralised units of smaller size rather than one de-centralised structure...(whatever that is...err sorry) :-)
yep You have outlined another strength of decentralising managment it does however have weaknesses as well
Imagine if fifty percent of American states drove on the left....oh my :-)
It's here that the principle of subsidiarity comes in. It began in the Catholic Church as a way of thinking about the exercise of authority in the Church, but has developed into a political tool.
Basically, as I understand it, the principle is this: each decision should be made at the level as near as possible to the people it affects (if you want to picture it in hierarchical terms, the lowest possible level.)
Of course applying that principle, if it's accepted, requires a new skill: determining the appropriate level for a decision. And even among those who accept the principle, there is much debate as to what decisions belong at which level: cf the European Union, and discussion about the reponsibilities of the new assemblies for Wales and Scotland (to say nothing of Northern Ireland).
[...]
approach
de-centralising
Which an acceptance of the principle of subsidiarity would resolve. (Not just Americans, btw).
A good example of an instance where the town or county or state is not the lowest possible level.
The siting of a community centre would be a banale example of an instance where the town or neighbourhood would be the appropriate level.
I didn't expect anyone to transform this thread into a serious discussion - it seemed destined to be an exchange of fire from prepared positions. You two (and others) seem to have managed that transformation. I take off my hat to you.
My goodness...i`ve been struggling to verbalise / visualise /create that idea for ages and it turns out the catholic church had got it sorted all along :-)
what can i say?..
I really should pay more attention to songs of praise or whatever :-)
Um, "Show me the way to Martin Sylvester's Catholic Books site?" <big cheeky grin>
Don't be hard on yourself, the church has been working on it for 2000 years; much longer than that, if you count the Jewish legacy that fed into the early church.
Yuck! <ahem> Allow me to rephrase that: I know there are people who appreciate that programme, and I intend no disrespect to them, but it's all too twee and bland for me. And, do you know, AFAIK they've never once discussed the principle of subsidiarity. I know, it's hard to believe. ;:-)
Martin.
PS If you do want to explore the concept of subsidiarity here's a link that lets you search the documents on the Vatican's intranet: http://www.vatican.va/search/ricerca.htm I got more than 70 hits for "subsidiarity".
Songs Of Praise is just people singing and stuff, isn't it? I try to avoid watching it because there's singing and as far as I can see it's just loads of people standing in a church singing and if you like that sort of thing, why not just go to church and sing instead of sit at home watching it on TV? I don't watch much TV anymore anyhow 'cos it's mostly crap and it's only there so companies can sell their products and other companies can make money off of them and I don't want to watch most of that shit anyway except Daria 'cos that's good but most of it's crap.
Hey, least I didn't put loads of exclamation marks in! :P Am I going too fast today? Paul said I was and Karen and more people at school and after and stuff, and I think I am LOL, something must be wrong LOL! :)
Well, 99 % of everything is crap. Actually it varies from 90%, 95%, or 99%, depending on what sort of mood I'm in. But the remaining percent redeems the rest.
Dagny misery chick, cynic
http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697
"Did you ever get the feeling That the truth is less revealing Then a downright lie? And did you think your head is hip To certain things it's not equipped to qualify?" Neil Innes
I'll continue to hold onto my personal upholding that 95% of synth-driven music from the late '70s and early '80s is great, but that's just the New Romantic in me talking. (Or is it..."it's not me talking"...? *g* Oh I bet v. few people will get that one....)
deena lissa warning: this character almost LIVES in the '80s
LOL i decided to shut up 'cos it had developed into a mild flamewar and TDH seems to have disappeared which is good because maybe i'll stay now lol! But i am still happy since yesterday lol which can only be a good thing except that i'm annoying everyone but i don't care lol! :)
Yes lol, well i will see, may not stay in such a good mood and have decided not to inflict myself upon you whilst in a bad mood! :)
:) I have no idea what is wrong with me today and yesterday lol, just in one of *those* moods <lol> where i can't shut up, lol i was almost skipping home from school hehehe, yelling at everyone to hurry up when i'm normally the slow one, lol. :)
No, of course not. My point was that because Cuba is closer to us, we pay more attention to it than we would if it was on the other side of the Atlantic (as it is from the viewpoint of Europe). And because we receive most of the Cuban refugees, America is very well informed about the state of affairs in Cuba (which is abysmal).
You know what seasonal affective disorder is, don't you? <g> But anyhow, what's freedom if you can't breath? Makes no difference whether you're free or not if you've got 5 minutes to live.
You said "freedom is everything". Paul pointed out that it's possible to survive without it, therefore, you were wrong because freedom clearly is not *everything*.
Umm...? Maybe I'm way too stupid to understand this, but I fail to see how you made this obscure leap of logic.
The biological needs of existence are another balancing factor in deciding on what policies to institute. So "freedom" is not allways clearly the most important issue when making these decisions...ie .freedom is not everything even in a political sense.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:34:47 +0100, "Paul gate" wrote:
I would disagree. I would say this is a hierarchy of needs matter. Food, air, and water are biological needs, the most basic needs met to survive. Self-determination of government, and where it ranks on the hierarchy, is the question at hand.
I would say pretty high (i.e. not that important). There are a lot of things people think about, such as entertainment, social acceptance (yes, it does matter to all human beings, believe it or not. Daria may not seek wide social acceptance, but Jane is important to her), self-worth (a feeling of importance or achievement), and class mobility (the ability to move around in social class through a system of merits) rank lower (more important) than self-determination of government, unless there is an extreme case of a government being horrible. In Cuba, without the embargo, Cubans wouldn't be doing great, but they would be in survivable conditions. Therefore, I'd rank self-determination of government among those things I mentioned (usually it'd be less important than any of them), but not below (i.e. more important) them. ___ Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
I would say we agree, however i placed them side by side, in the above in order to help communication.....Imho, the basic biological needs of humans are of higher priority than their political freedoms ie not equal priority or position in your hierarchy The supply of these needs is still a political matter however because the "freedoms" that are higher in your hierarchy rely on these needs being met.
There are a lot of
I am confused by the following though kyle....I can`t be sure i read your post as it was intended...
I disagree. Cuba trades with Canada, Europe, and most of Latin America. Why should an inability to trade with the USA cripple her economy? I think Cuba's main economic problem is Fidel Castro, and his adherence to Communism.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 11:52:18 -0700, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from TDH , and it said:
I think their point (as well as mine) is that a representative government is not a pre-requisite to a happy life, or at least it's not for the majority of people. Historically speaking, I think the finest government I ever heard of was Rome under Octavius Caesar Agustus (first to hold the title, "Agustus"), and he ruled supreme. And he did a damn good job of it, particularly considering the fact that, given he was only the second of his combined office (he succeeded Julius), he was not assasinated. Of corse, the problem with this is the problem of successors. Life is all fine and dandy so long as you are under an enlightened, benovelant dictatorship, but when he dies, the struggle for power is hellish, and there's no guarentee there'll be a good successor, and while he's doing all the work, most people get out of practice making decision for themselves. This is why a republican form of government (when it works) is typically better. By not putting all your eggs in one basket, you might not end up with the greatest of all governments, but it'll also never be the worst. So you end up with a stable form of government.
You shouldn`t make half backed, idiotic claims if you don`t want people to point out the obvious flaws.
Through means that do not only involve the freedoms you espouse as i said, "freedom" is not everything QED
Many poor people in the usa only have water because of taxation Without taxation they could well starve, or die of thirst
Conclusion "freedom" is not the only reason poor people in america have water and food, and therefore, life. It is a mixture of approaches that makes this possible..one of which is state coersion
People who claim the individual is entirely responsible for his position in the world are half wits, yes
blah blah blah...go tell it the monk, you over-inflated wind bag.
You are a smug concieted toad, TDH Your opinions fit the profile of somebody who rarely reflects, or engages in honest discusion
Very true. Problem is, in Cuba, that you have no choice but to "worry about the government", since the government enforces positive norms on you (forces you to do things), rather than merely enforcing negative norms on you (prohibits you from doing things). And worse, the Cuban government claims the right to enforce a LOT of negative norms on you (such as prohibiting you from speaking your mind).
Free thinkers and nonconformists (among whom I think most of the people on this newsgroup would be classified) would NOT be happy under Castro's rule.
So true. So sadly true.
I'll point out, though, that Cubans have it worse off than most Latin Americans; Cuba is a much less democratic and much more oppressive society. This oppression extends to enforced material privation (Cubans are not free even to work to improve their economic condition) and thus directly affects the lives of even non-political *campesinos*.
Yes. Very, very well reasoned and put. And very true.
Heh-heh, he's just one step above Beavis in the competence department.
Indeed, the only good argument for intervention in Yugoslavia is that we are responsible for them as fellow human beings ... but if America claims the right to intervene on this basis, it does logically follow that we must also be the fountainhead of global authority. Which is probably biting off more than we can (or should) chew!
Cuban society is restrictiveish as i understand it , but as far as i can make out the lives of average cubans aren`t signficantly worse than the lives of millions of other people around the world who work for shareholders interests.
"Restrictiveish?" It's a totalitarian dictatorship, in which even non-violent dissent is punishable by long prison sentences, torture is routine, and virtually every aspect of one's life is monitored or even actively controlled by government agencies.
Calling Cuba merely "restrictiveish" is like saying that being sent to a Nazi death camp could be "unhealthy!"
??? Cuba is on the verge of famine, and their economy has broken down to the point where the peasants have to pull the plows manually (they don't even have enough draught animals, let alone tractors!) Cuba is just one or two bad harvests from being as bad off as North Korea.
The fallacy there is that a foreign power can impose a democratic government on another country by force. It's a contradiction in terms, and is why democracy has failed in many countries whose affairs the West has meddled in. All you can really do is set up a puppet regime that's in cahoots with the foreign power.
Sometime that's enough to serve as the seed of a genuine democracy, though. Look at the fates of Germany, Japan, Italy, Grenada, and Nicaragua (in the last case, the democratic regime was voted in, but only after the Contra campaign).
This isn't the board to discuss it on, but I suggest you take a closer look at the human rights records of other countries before you make this claim. Especially Cuba, which is a totalitarian dictatorship which (among other things) criminalizes homosexuality, and many other things that we take for granted as being mere "lifestyle choices" in the USA.
Many other Western countries have serious problems with police brutality ... the difference is that we SEE it as a "problem" whereas they see it as simply "the way things work". As for capital punishment, that's a whole other issue, but I'll point out that we don't actually execute very many people, and we have a lot of legal safeguards to avoid executing the innocent.
I think there are depths to his character. Observe his love for his sister, for example.
<sigh> I don't want to go into this again, but I will point out that it's a very long-lasting "crush" (over a year MTVerse time), and one which has endured getting to know the object of the "crush" quite well. Past a certain point, one must accept that a "crush" has turned into "love".
Yes, but what's the difference between a "crush" and "love", exactly? I would argue that a "crush" is "love" which is not based upon a realistic appraisal of the beloved, and that conversely any "crush" which survives such appraisal is simply unrequited love.
And simply because love is not currently requited does not mean that it must remain unrequited.
On 25 Apr 1999 10:09:49 GMT, [email] (JBassior) wrote:
Love is a conscious choice and commitment. A crush is a biological phenomenon.
Love and crushes are two different things, and they can't change back and forth. You can have a crush on someone, and then love them, but the crush itself never evolved into that love.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
True, but human emotions don't separate out that neatly. Our thoughts, feelings, and biochemistry all interact in a complex cycle of feedback.
It's quite possible to see a member of the opposite sex, feel a purely sexual attraction (he/she is "cute"), and have this develop into a conscious and emotional attraction upon closer acquaintance. It is also quite possible to initially be unattracted to someone and later (upon knowing the person better) approve of them to the point where sexual attraction sparks.
I disagree. You can be attracted to (and thus pay attention to someone) because of a crush, and because you paid positive attention to them you can discover deeper things about them which cause you to feel love for them.
The mere emotion of love does not require requition or committment. That's why we speak of "unrequited" and of "free" love.
Looking at Daria's feelings for Trent, it's obvious that in the beginning it was just a crush, but it seems to have evolved into something deeper on her part. She knows Trent well enough now, that she is no longer simply seeing his surface, and yet she still likes him. That means something.
It does NOT necessarily mean that he will like her back the same way (requite her love). Nor does it mean that they will ever have a romantic or sexual relationship. But I would argue that Daria, at least, loves Trent.
On 26 Apr 1999 00:16:42 GMT, [email] (JBassior) wrote:
It doesn't "develop into", it develops as a side effect of the time spent around that person, feeding the crush.
And there is also a difference between a sexual attraction and a crush.
i guess we're arguing semantics. I believe a crush can put one into a situation where love develops, but the crush itself doesn't evolve into love, and if you had spent time with that person for another reason, the love still would have developed.
I guess, in the end, I am the last person who should be giving out these sorts of opinions.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
You might be right ... how would one be able distinguish between the love developing "as a side effect" as opposed to "from" the crush? It seems like a technical distinction of no real practical importance to anyone save a psycho-pathologist dealing with a stalker.
True. I'd point out in context here that Daria seems to have recognized the irrationality of her original attraction, and *avoided* Trent for quite a while (note the early episodes where Trent shows up). I don't think she has been avoiding him as much in the later ones ... by "Pierce Me" she is obviously hoping he will ask her out (and she gets her wish, sort of ...)
On 25 Apr 1999 17:19:41 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Kyle), and it said:
Excellently put!
Well put. To add, the crush merely gives you cause to be around a person often and long enough to gain a love for that person, but one can just as easily find love from riding the bus home with the same girl, every single day, for four years, despite the complete lack of romantic interest in the beginning...
(can you tell I'm describing a personal experience?)
In article , [email] (JBassior) wrote: {Useless trolling about USA's human rights record deleted}
for
Hurrah! Good point, sir! Trent's relationship to "Janey" is exactly, in my opinion, a large part of what makes the Trent Estrogen Brigade go all soft in the shorts for him. After all, who can find fault in a guy who loves his sister?
endured
one
Jordan, you lost me here, and I must say that I have personal experience in the area. When I was in HS, I had a crush on a certain girl. <reader's digest condensed version>We spent one (innocent) evening together on a band trip my junior year, and I held a crush on her until my freshman year in college (we happened to attend the same school).</reader's digest condensed version> Longer than a year? Yep. A crush, or love? Definitely a crush. Love happens when you let your guard down around another person. Daria hasn't done that around Trent yet. And I'm not altogether sure she'll be able to for a while.
I wanna puke when I see Klintoon rambling about human rights, Cuba hasnt executed anyone in my lifetime, (They still sentance people to death but dont kill them) The US has executed some 540
The last time the Cuban Police shot and killed a suspect was in 1984. And NY Police shot that black man sitting infront of his house 47 Times and as far as I know he wasnt a suspect of anycrime, just a skeet for target practice by Newyorks Finest.
Political Prisonors, Yes that is unacceptable, I agree. But atleast Cuba doesnt kill people
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:47:36 GMT, Trevor Morris wrote:
Oh, *this* is a promising start. The people I pay the least amount of attention to are the ones who claim to have an exclusive lock on the truth. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and listen further...
"American government brainwashing"... anti-government ramblings... a highly developed sense of paranoia... insults... sure sounds like one of those militia nut-cases to me. You aren't exactly winning me over to your side of the argument, m'boy.
That you know of. But I forgot, we're merely unwitting victims of the American system of government. (So are our friends across the Ponds; you can't escape us! Resistance is futile!) What *was* I thinking?
Martin (to send E-mail, remove the "nospam" from my E-mail address) ---- Quinn: "When they got nervous, they'd drink cocoa." Helen: "Now, sweetie, there's nothing to worry about." (door slams) "Looters!" ---- Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria! http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/
geez, don't read the group for a few days and some sort of awful flame war regarding Cuba and human rights and right-wing rantings fills my beloved a.t.d. What happened? Did MTV show an episode of Daria where the CIA sold crack to Mack which caused him to fail an ethics test while Kevin, who had a bye, ovethrew a small third-world nation and Jane sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese?!
Cappadocius,
consistently amazed at how fast usenet can drift off-topic and
then burst into flames.
A person posted some Daria Question, And in "The New Kid" there was a refrence to Human rights in China, I simply pointed out the fact the US has the worst human rights record in the Western World, This is a result of Capital Punishment and Police Brutality, Cuba comes in Before the United States, But it's position is nothing to brag about either. It is based on a system of Demerit points.
It is a fact deal with it, Write you congressman and senator and try to fix the problem, All you have to do it move your justice system into the 20th Century and route out the brutal racist trash on your police forces.
That is all I can really say I am sorry if I offended anyone but that is the cold hard truth, And the lowlife who sent me the picture of the dismembered corpse and a rant supporting the death penalty, I would like to thank you, I have been looking for some good wallpaper for a very long time,
Loyal Daria Freak And Human Rights Fanatic Trevor Morris
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 21:06:49 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Trevor Morris , and it said:
I think there's the problem that some people (particularly here in America) rate less government intervention higher on their list of human rights, and others (particularly in the rest of the western world) rate tangible benefits, like health care, security, etc. higher. Personally, I prefer the lowest amount of government intervention necessary to keep things stable and peaceful, which may be higher in some parts of the world than others. But I do not judge those that prefer it the other way. I simply debate, hope the vote swings my way, and if it doesn't, the people have spoken, and i just deal with it.
Much easier said (and we say it all the time) than done. For the most part, racism is not accepted in the country, except by a few who we tolerate because we punish actions, not beliefs (as it should be). Believe me, we're trying, but the situation is so complex the answer is not easy to find. And this is the reason I would prefer to stay out of other countries problems as well; it's all well and good to decide that we need to "help" the people of the Yugoslav region get their government on straight, but I wouldn't want NATO or the UN to decide the same thing about our problems. And, in fact, our problem is very simelar; a lot of ethnic groups that aren't used to being here, aren't used to participating in government, and aren't totally integrated into the larger society. That problem isn't terribly noticable in most of western europe, Canada, and other countries that have either been settled for a _very_ long time, or don't recieve immigrants at a bulk rate, like we do.
Yeesh, you really must've ticked some people off with what was a perfectly reasonable (if unsupported, and inflammitory from some points of view) statement.
I was ignoring this thread but I have to say something. Trevor, you need to:
1) take this argument to a more appropriate group 2) while following suggestion #1, please get a reality check. If the U.S.A. is so horrible, why do so many millions of people from every other country in the world want to come live here? And why aren't millions of U.S. citizens trying to move to other countries? It's simple: even with all our flaws, we are the best. (No offense to those of you who live elsewhere.)
Its simple. Someone said something insulting and obnoxious about the state of human rights in the US compared to same in Cuba, and someone else said something defensive and obnoxious back. From there, it proceeded according to the NNFWP (Net News Flame War Protocol, a generative grammar for long strings of the form, "Am not, are so, am not, are so...").
Many Americans have been obsessed with Cuba since the 60's, which is when Castro came to power and the CIA started to make annual attempts to assassinate him. It's just a quirk, it will pass.
LOL, I know how you feel, I came back from a three-day weekend expecting some heavy discussion, yes, but I thought it'd be about the C5 airing of a new "Daria" ep, not about this. Oh yeah, and "this" is just another in those ceaseless "we're gonna rip the US into shreds even though they gave the world true democracy and save everyone's hides whenever their hides are in danger" posts. Also known as "wow, I finally agree with something TDH posts -- that's too weird" time.
deena lissa who loves her America and is standing by it through and through
Let's see... reading back through that sentence... nope, nowhere did I say anything close to "this didn't happen." Guess I'd better stop all that writing between the lines. :-)
I was reacting to the sheer paranoia contained in the message, and not specifically to the message itself. Facts are facts and can't be refuted, but anyone can take facts and use them to bolster their arguments, or to try to lend an air of legitimacy to their point of view. I have no problem with the individual facts in the message, just the paranoid conclusions and suppositions they're being used to support... the same sort of suppositions and conclusions you hear being spouted off by every right-wing militia nutcase who gives the concept of "patriotism" a bad name.
Martin (to send E-mail, remove the "nospam" from my E-mail address) ---- Quinn: "When they got nervous, they'd drink cocoa." Helen: "Now, sweetie, there's nothing to worry about." (door slams) "Looters!" ---- Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria! http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/
A justice that has been complained about repeatedly by the worlds human rights organisations The death penalty is unevenly administered. In short you are far more likely to get the chair for a particular crime if you are..poor, or non white
justice indeed...You get the justice you BUY in America.
How does one forfeit the RIGHT to live? You can commit a crime which you know carries the death penalty, but I don't think that takes away your right to live. Do you think anti-abortionists have the right to go around killing doctors who carry out abortions? Would you kill a cat for killing a mouse???
How does that make the American "justice" system any more just? Relatively, of course, but it changes nothing.
You have to pay for your own healthcare in the US, don't you? If you don't have insurance and you aren't so poor you get benefit you're fucked, so I've been told. In the UK you have the NHS, so everyone shares the cost. The NHS may be pretty shit, but I'd rather have a shit service that gives everyone equal healthcare, than have a good service and the knowledge that some people are getting far worse than I am just because they can't afford it.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:12:55 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
That is a matter of opinion. I feel, personally, that a person CAN forfeit the right to live, under certain circumstances. It is inherent in a society that living in the society is accompanied by an accepting of the rules that the society has set up, at least to a degree. This includes the ability to change these rules, through acceptable means (including social protest, before anyone gets up in arms about that statement).
If, in the course of a life, it is obvious that a person cannot function in the society (do not confuse this with being an outsider. Outsiders have a defined function in a society, whether they realize it or not), and is even detrimental to the society, punitive action can and should be taken. The degree of the punitive action depends on the degree of the crime. If it is clear that there is no chance for rehabilitation (and usually if there is, it's not even a very good one), and a person is a danger to individuals who have done nothing wrong, then he does forfeit certain rights. If he repeatedly infringes upon other people's right to live, with no chance that he will stop, he does forfeit the right to live.
Your hypothetical questions are poor arguments. Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do I believe that it doctors should be killed for carrying them out? No, I do not. Do I believe that serial killers should be killed? Usually.
Do I believe that a cat should be killed for killing a mouse? No. That's a stupid question. A cat's defined role in it's society (nature) is to kill mice. We do not live in nature, and it is not our role to kill other people.
Why is the governments job to do that?
You've been told wrong. You aren't going to go into an emergency room with a knife in your head and be denied treatment. You may not get platic surgery to cover the wound, but you won't be allowed to die, either.
Then pay for theirs. Health care is a service, not a divine right. People should be given health care. Every last one of them. That does not mean it's the government's job to pay for it. It is the society's job, ecspecially charitable organizations.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
I would agree with most of this, but not the part about forfeiting the right to live. Rules of society are not, IMO, rights, although they are usually defined by what most people believe the rights are. But of course everyone has differing opinions on what the rights are, so you take the "average", sorta. What most will agree to.
You can never tell that someone has no chance of stopping, though. So do you kill them anyway? What about their family and friends? Do they have to suffer the death of a loved one just because he/she forfeited his/her right live? I think if someone repeatedly infringes upon others' "right to live", he/she shouldn't have his "right to live" taken from him, but he should have his "right to live in that society" taken away, ie, be put in prison or something. I don't think it's ever necessary to kill someone, although it wouldn't be too hard to convince me otherwise on this issue because death doesn't seem to me to be *that* unreasonable a penalty in *some* cases.
Well, where do you draw the line? Where does it stop being doing something wrong, and become doing something that deserves the death penalty? There is a big difference between a particularly nasty serial killer, and a doctor who carries out abortions, but there are an infinite number of things in between. I don't think doctors who abort pregnancies and serial killers should be given the same punishment, but I think if you're going to punish people for something so broad as murder, you should at least have continual variation in the punishment. The difference between a non-capital crime and a capital crime might be quite small, but there's an enourmous difference in being locked up and being killed.
If cats did not kill mice, cats' defined role in their society would not be to kill mice. Cats evolved to kill mice. If they didn't kill mice, they wouldn't kill mice... errm, you know what I mean <g>... well, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.... :)
Define "nature".
But people *do* kill other people. So how is it then not our role? Cats kill mice, it is their role. People kill people.... but it is not their role?
Because not everyone can afford it, but most people get ill.
Well, yes, I'd hope they wouldn't leave you to die, but I've been told of couples having to divorce when one of them was ill so he'd qualify for welfare, etc.
I can't afford it either! :)
It's society's job, yes. So you pay tax for healthcare, so nobody has to pay what they can't afford, and so people who're ill more often don't have to pay more just because they get ill, etc.
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:23:28 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
Everyone who did not see this coming, please raise your hands. No one should have their hands raised.
You use your best judgement, meaning the judgement of psychological professionals. The second chances are an act of mercy, not something they deserve or have a right to.
The suffering is inflicted on them by the guilty party, not by the government simply doing the right thing. It hurt when Ol' Yeller died to, ya know.
But why should society support him in prison? Ideally, you could cut him off from society (which in this case means the human race). But you can't. So killing him is the next best thing. And most people, if given the option of total isolation or death, would be wise to choose death.
You draw the line quite easily. You use your judgement. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most. And if the judgement is a little harsh, I have no pity for someone who consciously broke the rules of society in such a grave manner.
Let me rephrase that to say "we don't live under natural law". We live under a self-defined societal law.
It is not their role, because society has defined that it is better for all human beings that we not kill each other, under almost every situation. If you don't like that societal decision, tough noogies buddy, cause you've agreed to live in that society. Fair? Probably not. Right? yes.
Does not make it the governments job. Make's it society's job.
Horror stories don't define the norm.
Someone out their can. That's why we have charities. My church (the one my dad runs) pays for at least one hospital stay a month for poor people in our community, and we're a very small church.
There is a large difference between society and government. The money that provides poor people with healthcare should go to charities.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
If enough people want the government to fulfill this role there is no reason why they shouldn`t
well i don`t think this is *that* abnormal...it it has happened enough to be noted as a phenomena
If you don`t qualify for welfare but don`t earn much, rushing to the nearest church in the hope that they may sew your arm back on is going to be fruitless
why not organise it a bit though?
Why not make it one of those arbitary societal rules that you were so keen on earlier in your post that everybody in the community cough up a certain percentage of their income towards stopping poor people being left bleeding to death in gutters?
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 05:33:16 +0100, "Paul gate" wrote:
I've never head that statistic (the third type of lie, by the way) before, but if it's true, it's only because of the ACLU and other various legal challenges that bog down executions because they know they can't eliminate them completely. I guarentee you it costs less to shoot someone than it does to board them at prisons for 60 years.
No reason at all. But if people don't want the government to, they shouldn't do it. Either way, it's the people's choice, not an inherent role of the government.
No, but they will pay for it. Believe it or not, we do some good.
I guess so. This really wasn't the argument I was interested in in the first place, and I can live with it either way.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
I put it in capitals so I thought you might get it, but obviously not, so I will try again: how does that take away your RIGHT to live? RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. Not how does one get killed by the state, how does one lose the RIGHT? Someone could make washing spiders down the plughole a capital crime. Would you then have lost the right to live just because you washed a spider down the plughole? Even though you'd done that exact same thing a hundred times before it was criminalised?
Why? And what about self-defence? What about when someone is under extreme provocation? What about assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia? What about mental illness? War? Sleep-walking? (it has happened) Infanticide/neonaticide?
But the anti-abortionists believe that the *doctors* are murderers, who are getting away with killing people.
Well, what's the difference between killing a person and killing an animal, morally speaking? Why is one better? Or are cats allowed to kill mice, because it's "natural"?
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:19:48 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
A "right" is something that cannot be taken away without your permission. When you commit a capital crime, you are inherently saying you agree to forfeit that right.
Which is why I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". But that does not mean no crime is capital. And outside of self-defense or the defense of others, I don't believe any killing is right because of provocation.
It is also not the killers societal role to enact the killing.
Yes, that's EXACTLY it. It's "natural". That is their agreed societal role. You've agreed to live in human society (and don't give me none of that outsider, loner, anti-social crap. It's bull. Outsiders, loners, and anti-socialism are all societal roles you've put on yourself.)
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
I don't agree with that. I would say that you alone do not have your right to live, it's also the people around you.... This is, incidentally, basically why I haven't killed myself yet. <g>
Mmm, no, not *right*, but I think "less wrong". I wouldn't say killing in defense is "right", but I think it's "less wrong" than most other types of killing.
True. I believe it's wrong for them to kill the doctors, but not *much* more wrong than it is for people to be exectuted.
I wouldn't give you any of "that outsider... " crap, I agree on that. But anyhow, what would you say was "natural"? Why is something "unnatural" just because it's human? Depends on what you define "natural" as being, of course, but I would say there's no such thing as "unnatural".
You wavered your right not to be killed? Does this mean anybody can now kill you with moral impunity?
Perhaps it is better to think of murder in terms of a crime against civilisation, rather than the breaking of somebodies right to live, after all the complainant is now dead..and has no rights.
The right to live can`t be an "inalienable right" if it can be ignored legaly or considered "void"under certain circumstances.
You started the argument, but you won't finish it. Why is that? Because you have something better to do? Evidently not, see below. Or because you have nothing with which to back up your argument? Well, I have yet to see you have an argument with anyone without you calling them stupid at some point; I wonder what that tells us.
Yes, because I was running out of clothes, duh. You expect me to care more about a *TV show* than about having something to wear? You expect me to care more about a TV show thanleaving the house, seeing my friends? Not that you seem to have much experience in that last one, unless you're in the same situation as me: ie, your friends are all revising and stuff.
Odd, I thought *you* were the one who didn't like this newsgroup.
Because he has no hobbies and only enjoys television, I presume.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:19:48 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "endless, nameless" , and it said:
The idea is to set up _just_ laws, which use the death sentance in a reasonable way. If you've got someone who killed a guy because that guy killed his brother, who killed someone else, who killed... whatever, I don't think the death sentance is warrented. Certainly, this cycle _must_ be stopped, and a lengthy prison sentance (not maximum security, but highly disiplined, and somewhere they can also get an education to prepare them for the outside) would be a good idea. If, however, you've got a guy who killed seventeen kids, to butcher them and put them in his freezer for later... or, you've got a complete sociopath who has killed before, again, and shows no sign that he has any plans of stopping, the death sentance is reasonable.
As you have pointed out, there are many reasons someone might have to kill. In the interests of civil stability, the killing of another human being (without just cause) must be punished. After all, once you allow one guy to get away with vengence, you end up with a cycle far worse than simply punishing the criminal himself.
But whether or not the doctors can or can't do this or not isn't up to the vigilante mob, it's up to the legislature, or the judiciary. In fact, by behaving so uncivilly, those people only hurt their cause, not help.
Personally, I don't like abortion. But if this country is to retain it's form of government, we have to be willing to try to change what we want to change (through political action), but accept when we get voted down. Otherwise, we just end up in the situation where elections are decided not by voters, but by Guys With Guns.
A person is a member of our own species. When someone kills a person, that person is likely to have friends or relatives who are likely to grieve at best, seek vengence at worst. History is filled with blood feuds that went on because two families kept trying to "get the other one back." If there is an effective criminal justice system, the originating crime can be punished, and that'll be the end of it. "Go back to your lives, citizens, nothing to see here..." Killing another person doesn't just kill that person, it damages all of society, in a wave, starting with their family, spreading out like the ring from a rock thrown into a pond . The idea behind the death penalty is to stop the damage before it gets out of hand. (Unfortunatly, it doesn't always work this way, but what does?)
Animals are not people. Animals are food, or clothing, or perhaps pets, or draft animals, or just those things that run around in the woods. The wrongness of killing an animal is directly related to how much a person might care about the death of that animal.
If you kill a cow, or a deer, or some other animal typically killed for food and hides, the only repercussion is a full belly and a pair of boots. If you kill them _all_, that's bad, because now you don't have any left, and will go hungry (which is the reason for anti-poaching laws).
If you kill one horse among many, some breeder is going to be really mad, about as mad as he would be if you vandalized his property. If you kill someone's only horse, or someone's dog or cat or something, he might grieve as if he lost a family member.
A clear distinction _must_ be drawn between people and animals, since, as omnivourous creatures, it is nearly impossible to avoid eating them. And if a society fails to draw that distinction, one of two things result: "animal rights" insanity, or human slavery.
The problem is , that no matter how hard you try you can *rarely* if ever be certain enough of somebodies guilt to moraly invoke a sentence that can never be repealed.
I wonder how many people would be sentenced to death if those sentencing could be tried for murder themselves, if later evidence put reasonable doubt apun the prisoners guilt.
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:10:09 +0100, "Paul gate" wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to be that convinced of a person's guilt. Personally, I would like to see 8-4 votes stand for convictions in most criminal cases, with only capital crimes needed the 12-0 vote. If, despite all a lawyer can do, it is still obvious to 12 individuals without one dissent that a person is guilty and deserves a capital punishment (and in my opinion, most of these should be for repeat offenders, so they would have had to have been convicted this way several times) then we can be sure enough of justice.
Of course, my ideal society is one judged by God, through men who know His heart, but there's no need for a religous debate here, so ignore that last statement.
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:26:36 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Paul gate" , and it said:
Sure enough, and if somebody is even that strongly suspected (unless there has been a seriously competant frame job, which I don't think is that common), they probably did _something_ wrong.
Actually, it's "Thou shalt not murder." The death penalty (usually stoning) was proscribed for a number of offenses, accoring to the Old Testament. And while they were not supposed to murder, they were supposed to kill _all_ the Cananites (sp?), in war, of corse. The OT then goes on to describe their history, which involves them breaking every single one of those commandments, killing people they were not supposed to kill, not killing those they were supposed to kill, etc...
(Once again going in blindly, without reading responses)
In article , "endless, nameless" wrote:
Self-defense cases, "crimes of passion", assisted suicide cases, mental illness, and war cases are all prohibited by law from being punished via the death penalty because they don't fall under the "first degree murder" distinction. Meaning, it wasn't premeditated with intent to kill, or wasn't a murder committed while in the act of another crime such as robbing a bank or raping someone. The other murder distinction in which someone can be legally sentenced to die is in the case of killing an officer of the law.
But it hasn't been proven. Myself, I don't believe it's truly "killing a life" unless it's an abortion done within the last trimester of a pregnancy, in which case delivery can occur and the baby can/will survive life outside the mother's womb. That's why I'm a pro-choicer who is against late-term abortions unless of cases where the woman's life is in danger. Just my opinion, you realize.
Gad, that's a hideous thought. My own opinion on abortion is eclectic; I think that the fetus has the right to live but not necessarily in the mother's body, and I hope that technology solves this problem by permitting the removal and artificial life support of the fetus without hurting either mother or child.
I'm going to attempt to point out what I see to be peculiar norms in the opinion you desribe: it's not an attack on you, Diane. 8-)
If the answer to "Can this human life survive independently?" determines whether or not that human life is entitled to protection from being killed, what about those who need nursing? Or residential care? Some of the refugees from Kosovo can't/won't survive without the help of others: let's just help the fit ones.
And how can someone aged (conception+59days) be fair game, while someone aged (conception+60days) be entitled to live? If you say that anyone has the right to make that distinction, you're saying that your right to live is conditional on someone else's granting that right: I beleive it is inherent in being a human being, and no-one can take justly it away. If your mother had had an abortion, you wouldn't be here, regardless of whether she'd had it at 70 days or 30. I can't see how you can say "At this date human rights begin."
And if legislators have the right to decide who has the right to live, what about a democratically elected government who say they choose not to grant that right to Blacks, or Jews, or people with disabilities?
That's why I think abortion is a human rights issue, not only for the women who are damaged by it, not only for the lives destroyed in the procedure, but for the basis of society's understanding of where human rights come form: granted (or not) by someone, or inalienable?
NB: I'm not accusing anyone who doesn't share my view of being malicious or stupid!
The scary thing is that in some places (like the Netherlands) the courts are apparently willing to wink at the murder of people under extreme life support. A significant number of people are "euthanized" without either their consent or the consent of loved ones ... which is to say, they are MURDERED even under Holland's laws. The Dutch don't seem to consider this a problem ... :(
Well, Deena's simply trying to draw a line for law enforcement purposes. The line has to be drawn somewhere ... for example, if you believe life begins at conception, one must define "conception" ... is it the joining of sperm and ovum, or the joining of their genetic cargoes, and how on Earth would anyone from the outside tell the difference in most practical situations?
Why does it *have* to be? If we accept that legislators can justly draw a line and say, "This side the line, human rights apply; that side, they don't" we've abandoned the idea of human rights as inalienable. I'm not accusing you of being inconsistent, btw: you may not share my view that human rights are inalienable rather than granted by the state.
anyone
You can't, so ISTM it's absurd to try and draw a line anywhere. If someone is pregnant, then you know for sure that conception has occured: and pregnancy seems the most common situation where people do presently seek to draw lines.
I'm not condoning abortifacients that prevent implanatation, btw.
I do believe that "human rights are inalienable rather than granted by the state". (I believe this not from a religious perspective, but rather from a belief in rationally discoverable objective standards of right and wrong). Having said that, things get more complex when we translate them into policy.
The political support does not exist for a complete ban on abortions, and may not until we have the technology to inexpensively extract the foetus alive and incubate it to infancy outside the womb. I'd rather ban late abortions, which is an achievable goal, than try to ban all abortions and wind up preventing none.
The problem with protecting foetuses is that they are uniquely helpless. Not only are they incapable of defending their own lives (as are infants, too) but their very existence is not obvious to the outside world until the last trimester of pregnancy. As a result, the likeliest effect (in today's world) of attempting a complete ban on abortion would be the creation of a black market abortion industry.
There's a moral problem with banning abortion too. The foetus, if human, has a right to life ... but does it have the right to occupy the mother's body against the mother's express wishes? (Admittedly, I don't think much of someone who would let her own baby die to avoid inconvenience, but I would argue that the mother has as much of a right to her own body as the foetus does to *its*).
The collision between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child is why abortion is a peculiarly intractable problem. Both sides of the debate consider themselves morally right, which is why extreme tactics (killings, bans on freedom of speech and assembly) are considered "just" in this cause by some of those involved in it.
Frankly, I'm hoping for a technical solution, since I don't see any moral one appearing any time soon.
I would agree with all of this (especially the part about the black market if abortion were entirely illegal, it would be similar to what a ban of certain drugs has done -- but that's a debate for another time).
I see your point, but I would argue that perpetrating the act that would lead to pregnancy is giving permission (and the right) to a fetus to occupy that space. This is why I find some of the ideas of some pro-choice advocates hard to swallow. It seems to me that they do have a choice already -- don't have sex (or protect yourself) and avoid (or reduce) the chances of getting pregnant. I don't mean to sound offensive or insensitive, but to me, they make abortion sound like an attempt to try to get out of a responsibility, not a last resort (which is how I feel it is intended).
This is one problem I have with some pro-life advocates. Some of them feel that killing doctors that perform abortions is going to magically get the general population to think they are right. Very hypocritical. It's naive to think you can stop someone just by doing what you percieve them to be doing.
At any rate, this is one problem that will never have a solution accepted by everyone.
I strive for technical solutions to problems. The less emotion involed, the better (so call me Vulcan).
Much, much worse than naive, in my view. I abhor abortion as an offence against human rights; but I find in me no sympathy at all for the argument that someone ought to kill the perpetrators. My view does come from a religious perspective (that old Catholic thing of "Hate the sin, but love the sinner."), but also from my objection to any death penalty, let alone one declared without legal process by self-appointed judges and executioners. How can someone planning a murder claim to be acting out of reverence for life?
And of course they *harm* the very cause they aim to promote. When people hear of a murder of an abortionist, many simply react against it (rightly) and then think no more of the matter (sadly). Having a reaction save some people from confronting the issue (it beats having to think), and IMHO the more people thought about it, and considered the arguments, the more opposition there would be to the destruction of life in the womb.
I do find it rather amazing that sexually active people find it so suprising when it happens. After all, pregnancy is what the sex drive evolved to induce.
Though that leaves open the question in rape and situations in which the girl really didn't know anything about sex ...
And stupid, because the result is to associate the pro-life position with violent criminality in the popular imagination.
I find it difficult to believe that any girl of an age where she might let someone have sex with her doesn't know enough about sex to know Where Babies Come From even, but there are some very stupid people out there and some parents won't tell their children the "facts of life" so girls can get to like 14 or something without knowing this stuff, until they learn it in Biology class... bit of a shock I'd have thought <lol>, but I was told all this when I was about 3. <g>
I say that if you don't have a womb and thus can't bear children on your own, you really shouldn't have a place in the discussion about abortion because it won't really affect you. It's easy for males to say "oh no, abortion's wrong", but are THEY the ones who have to carry the children? Are THEY the ones with the painful monthy reminders of what could happen?
A comedian once quipped that "if males could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament". I don't know if it'd be that far, but you'd certainly get more support out of males for the right to choose. The burden of motherhood is a large load and something that a number of women just can't handle. And besides, condoms break. Pills don't work. Precautions can be made to prevent pregnancy from occuring, but they aren't 100% completely effective. One can preach abstinence to people, but that's wholly unrealistic in today's society.
This is just my opinion, you realize.
deena lissa and thanks to the males who actually do get it
I think you underestimate the connection that males have in this issue. Sure, women do all the hard work, but the guys have an interest too. For one thing, this isn't a world of "us vs. them", "male vs. female." We're an integrated species--designed to work together as a system. We ALL have an interest in procreation and in the resulting children, personally and politically. Also, we guys have an interest in "our women." They're our mothers, our sisters, our "significant others," and our friends. We really don't want anything bad to happen to any of them (unless the guy's a jerk). It's part of being "Manly"--a guy thing.
Women are unquestionably more "plugged in" to childbirth than men, by design of nature. They must think about it a lot, from the time they're little girls on. I suspect it must be a heartbreaking decision to end it, not undertaken lightly. Having come to that terrible decision I'm not inclined to second-guess them. What could I say that they haven't already thought of?
Funny, when the Roe v. Wade decision came out, it was immediately declared that it would be the guys who would be overjoyed by being able to legally rid themselves of unwanted responsibilities. It didn't quite turn out that way. I think it just shows the whole issue, and the human species, is far more complex than people realize.
I disagree. For one thing, men have mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters. We're not totally unaffected by the issue. For another thing, we're all sentient and human, regardless of our sex. I'm capable of sympathizing with the point of view of someone not exactly like me.
No, and I'm glad we aren't ... I don't know how women stand half the crap that biology puts on them. Easy to see why women have a higher pain threshhold.
I agree.
One of the reasons why I find the officially-promoted condom-worship of the Age of AIDS rather unrealistic and disturbing. If condoms aren't reliable at preventing something the size of a sperm from passing the barrier, how will they prevent something the size of a virus from penetrating?
Yup.
Perhaps. Though note that the situation I brought up was rape, which can happen to a woman regardles of how "abstinent" she normally is.
The sad thing here, of course, is that the fetus created by a rape is innocent of the rape, and it seems unjust to destroy it. That's why I hope for a technological solution to the problem, a way in which both mother and fetus can survive, apart.
There's a difference between sympathy and actually *being* there, you know? I don't think there's any way a man could understand, really. Abortion's a waste of life and women only get one shot at producing a life every 28 days, and that's if they're lucky. Most men produce about 400 potential offspring per second, so wasteful even if they don't mean it to be. Men can feel sympathy but I don't think it would ever really affect a man the same; even if he knows his child is being destroyed he has so many other chances.
Heh, not high enough unfortunately.
How'd you like to find out your dad was a rapist? Of course you could lie to the child about its parents but that's not really fair IMO. I think a better solution to that problem would be to genetically engineer men to have lower testosterone levels. ;)
Sure, but I don't think I need to "be there" to develop a valid opinion on a subject. Look, I was trained as a historian, and I have opinions I'm willing to defend on military history (though I've never been in a war), 19th century history (though I was born in 1964), and maritime history (though I've never been a sailor). I realize that there's a dimension of the experience of pregnancy I'm never going to grasp emotionally, but that doesn't mean I can't grasp it intellectually.
Not to get too personal, Alli, but from what I understand you've never been pregnant, either, so your grasp of pregnancy is still purely theoretical too. Which doesn't mean you can't have valid opinions on the subject. Nor does it mean that you couldn't be right on some aspect of it that a woman with five children was wrong about. See?
Well, to be fair, the offspring isn't actualized until sperm meets egg. Each sperm or egg only has HALF of the genetic information needed to develop a unique individual (which is why male masturbation and female menstruation can't be construed as murder).
I do agree that biology makes the choice a lot harder for women. But that doesn't mean that fathers are incapable of love for their children, even in the foetal stage.
It would be sad, but it wouldn't destroy me. I'm my own person, no matter who my parents were. I'd rather be the child of a rapist than be aborted. However, I understand why a rape victim doesn't want to bear her rapist's child (which is why I was advocating extraction of the foetus, hopefully to an artificial womb).
I also agree with this... however, I'd like to say that if the child carried to term and then was put up for adoption, he or she would never know where they came from. One reason I think I may be against abortion as a principle for myself (I haven't decided yet..) is that my SO (significant other) was adopted as a baby. I think it would have been a shame to deprive the world of him, not to mention that if he'd been aborted I never would have met him and had my life so enriched by him. So I dunno. I think if I ever find myself in that position that would weigh in very heavily on my decision... but then again, having never been faced with anything remotely like that, I really could not say.
The only problem with going through with a pregnancy is it's not really that easy, emotional wise. Abortion is often seen as an "easy way out," which to some extent it is... but on the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of trauma that can occur if the pregnancy is carried out. Then again, they should be prepared for this
possibility if they're having sex at all. *sigh* I suppose it's an issue that won't die lightly... I do hope technology finds either a more effective birth control besides abstinence, or a way to avoid abortion by raising the baby outside the body. The former is probably more likely, but we shall see.
--J. PS.: This is the last of a group of posts I had to re-send because the date on my computer's messed up, said it was 1993, and so my old posts prob'ly won't show up most places... if they do, I apologize for seeming repetitive. <g>
Yes. Both abortion and pregnancy are emotionally and physically draining. Evolution designed women primarily as machines for producing other people (don't feel so bad, men were designed as walking sperm carriers), with very little regard for the effects on their health (remember, reproduction is a prime priority, biologicaly speaking).
We mammals invented emotions, and we anthropoids self-awareness. The cultural history of humanity has been one of trying to reconcile our ancient biological nature with our newly evolved intellects.
at all. *sigh*
We're pretty close to truly effective contraceptives; there are already subdermal implants on the market, for example (not in the USA, though). As for artificial wombs, we can *almost* do that already. The real trick will be bringing down the price to the point where we can economically use extra-uterine incubation to replace abortion.
The next trick will be convincing the feminists that this is a *good* idea. I speak with some knowledge of the subject, because when I first suggested this (8 years ago) I was shocked to realize that some women actually preferred to make sure that the fetus was *dead*, not merely "gone".
It's more general than that - evolution designed life forms as machines for producing more life forms. Reproduction is the meaning of life. As someone once pointed out, one thing we all have in common is that every one of our direct ancestors survived long enough to reproduce. Those life forms that don't reproduce don't have their DNA represented in the next generation, and this process of natural selection keeps all life forms focussed on the blind urge to procreate. (Actually there was recently an exception to this - a woman won the right to be inseminated with her dead husband's semen.)
But what would the effects be on the foetus? I would imagine they'd turn out petty weird: babes in the womb have sentience and are aware of their environment, not only of their mother but of the world beyond. It's reckoned that the first couple of weeks after birth are critical for the development of mother-child bonding, I would imagine that the pre- birth 9 months are pretty important too!
Not just emotion-wise - I'm glad I'm not a woman, as I think getting pregnant would totally freak me out, I mean sooner or later that thing has to come out of you, and as Nature forgot to put a zip in women's bellies, the only way out is through the rather small opening the sperm came in... I can totally understand how many women would rather have an abortion.
It's kind of a relic from an old incarnation of my site, where I modeled it after Dante's "Inferno." All the different sections of the page were there different circles of Hell, and I titled the whole thing Maleboge. In "Inferno," Maleboge was the 8th circle of hell, where people guilty of fraud (fortune tellers, liars, flatters, hypocrites, and I forget who else) were housed in 9 or 10 separate bolges. Really didn't have that much to do with the overall content of the page (unlike the section titles of the other pages in my site, which all had some connection with the content); I just liked the name and needed a main title. :-)
Erm... too much information? I dunno.. oh well, I just got home from an 11 hour car ride from Oregon, and I'm a tad out of it. <g>
In article , [email] (JBassior) wrote: <snip of all the interesting arguments I couldn't even BEGIN to dive into>
Condoms fail to stop the AIDS virus in an estimated 30% of cases. Yeah, I typed that right. 30%. Even if you're wearing a condom, you would still have a 30% chance of passing an STD along to your partner/s. As a teen who's never been encountered with a tough decision regarding sex, I really have no right to say much else.
But isn't the chance of catching HIV from someone who's got it only about 30% if you do it without a condom? That'd what I've heard, 1/3 times a woman will catch it from a man who's got it, and 1/1300 times a man will catch it from a woman who's got it. Not sure whether that's at all right or not, though, could be a load of crap.
Assuming that you would have transmitted the STD without the condom.
I'm not saying that condoms are useless, btw. They *are* valid means of reducing the risk of pregnancy and of venereal disease. However, the attitude shown in so many "public service announcements" and sex ed classes today, that a condom is some sort of magic talisman which makes any sex "responsible" or "safe" and thus ok is nothing short of irresponsible.
First of all, no condom or similar device can do anything about the heartbreak some one experiences when she realizes that all she is to her lover is a sort of well-animated sex toy, rather than a unique and special person to love, cherish, and defend against the world. The expectation of being loved and valued is normal, healthy, and sane, and a wise person does not sleep with someone who does not truly care for her.
(I use the female gender here, but this is equally true for any man whose big head is more functional than his little one. When I was 14, I was very badly hurt by an older girl who I discovered was simply using me. Men have feelings too ...).
Secondly, as you mentioned, condoms are fallible. You can get pregnant or catch venereal diseases even if they are in use.
Thirdly, the intense emotional interaction represented by making love to someone creates mutual bonds and expectations which can have dangerous consequences if you become involved with the wrong sort of persons. In particular, the violent often prey upon those who love them. Condoms do nothing at all to stop this sort of abuse.
Sure you do, Mindy. You don't have to have experienced something personally to have knowledge about it, or a valid opinion. :)
Condoms have, what, an 85% failure rate? It always irritated me that they never really mentioned this. It was kind of like, "Oh, use a condom, you'll be totally safe." I had to actively go out on my *own* and find information about this because I suspected something was a little fishy. I found that condoms aren't the magic protect-all that some have claimed them to be. Now, birth control pills, combined with condoms and/or periodic abstainence during the womans (predicted) fertile time is extremely effective, but a lot of work to keep up with accurately. It's unfortunate that not many people are willing to do that to protect themselves adequitely.
Yep. I feel that this, too, is not discussed enough in sex ed classes. I don't know if it would really make all that much difference, unfortunately... most of the
time, when you're in a relationship in whch you're being victimized in any way, denial is the common reaction. Girls and guys, both, would probably counter teachings of this sort with a "That's not me, no way," attitude.
In fact, it's all the better that you're thinking about it now. Someday, who knows
when, you WILL be faced with a "tough decision" about sex, and the more information
you already have, the better equipped you will be to answer it in a way that is accord with your values, beliefs, and wants. As well as knowing the smart and safe
thing to do, too, whatever that may be in the case.
I'd heard a 75% to 95% success rate, *if correctly used*. Now, a couple points here ...
1) If you're "sexually active" in the jolly carefree way that most advocates of condoms-as-curealls seems to assume most people are, let's say that you have sex, oh, once a week. At the higher of the two figures, this means that in two weeks, the *cumulative* chance of a failure is about 10%, in three weeks, about 15%, in a month 20%, and roughly so on. (If I had my calculator handy I'd give you the table, I'm rounding to the nearest 5% but this is roughly accurate). At the lower of the two figures, it's 25% in one week, 45% the second week, almost 60% the third week, and almost 70% in just a month.
(NB: this is *not* the chance of pregnancy or VD; merely the chance of *exposure* if the partner is fertile or diseased).
2) All this assumes that two horny teenagers are actually going to use the device properly in a moment of passion. And that the guy is of roughly average size (if he's small it will leak, if large it's more likely to tear). And that the condom isn't torn when the package is opened.
Heh, the people who make up the PSA's and sex ed curriculae are products of the 1960's Sexual Revolution, and don't like to admit the ways in which their ideology doesn't necessarily conform to either human nature or the fallible properties of latex.
with accurately.
Indeed. Of course, there's still the possibility of side effects. And if the condom fails you're still exposed to VD. And condoms do very little to protect you from a lot of OTHER infections which are contagious by saliva. And none of this is *any* protection against the emotional consequences of romantic betrayal ...
most
any
counter
Sadly true. What teenagers really need is to have their parents explain the facts of (emotional) life to them, though too often, people that age just don't listen (I know *I* didn't, not to everything my parents warned me about).
One way in which our culture's official attitude towards sexuality really hurts is that it tells teenagers that you *should* regard other people as conveniences, and expect to be regarded as a convenience by other people in return. This is an incredibly destructive set of values to inculcate people with.
Bad memes, unfortunately, can't be stopped by any kind of condom.
Er... yeah. Heh. That's what I meant to say, oops.
<snip stat percentage stuff>
of
A lot of this wouldn't be a problem if people were simply *honest* about their feelings, who they'd been with, how often, and when; and whether or not they used protection. It all comes back to communication and trust, as well as the intelligence to use the appropriate protection anyway.
don't
My family is extremely unusual, in that I consider my parents more good buddies than the looming Parental Unit. I've always listened to them because they never seemed to have a problem with talking to me. What seems to happen a lot is parents don't really know how to discuss things with their kids--especially when the kid is trying to get as far from them as possible, during their adolesence.
hurts
One thing about going to a Catholic school, is that they kind of are finally trying to instill in us some sort of relationship values we can use in real life. But they're just doing it now, in senior year religion. And most people in my class are probably about as far from virginal as you can get and pretty set in their ways. The corny way they kind of dance around the issue doesn't help, either...
Well, people don't bother to be honest with people they truly don't care about. The real problem is that we are taught, in many subtle ways, to treat other human beings as disposable.
I think most people learn relationships by imprinting on their parents' example when they're very young. That's why there are so many fucked up people around, if your parents had a bad relationship then you end up with a totally screwed up script in your head for how to relate to the opposite sex. A lot of our behaviour is simply programmed into us by example, and once it's there it's enormously difficult to debug.
I don't like to be overly critical of you deena, but I feel that is an incredablely sexist thing to say. That a man isn't capable of having an opinion on abortion simply because he's a man. Why not? It just as outrageous as saying that a woman can't have an opinion on professional football because there are no women that play (I know it's a simple example). Sure, I can never have any experience exactly like giving birth, but to say that this issue doesn't affect me is ludicrous.
I don't think that would be true. There may be more visible support, but I think the support is all ready very visible.
...and the load of fatherhood is easy to handle? I know you can respond by saying that some men run out on their pregnant girlfriends but I think that illustrates my point -- they can't handle it.
I understand that, but that wasn't the point I was arguing. Jordan said that maybe the fetus doesn't have a right to the womb and I countered that by having sex, permission is given. He countered by asking how rape victims figure in, and honestly I can not come up with any answer to that question which I can use as an argument. I would also argue that abstinence is not as impossible as you might think (this is just a gut feeling, I have no facts to back this up).
Of course, just as my response is (I don't claim to spew absolute truth, even though I sound like I do that sometimes).
I know this maybe a throw-away line from your perspective, however, I'm curios as to exactly what you meant by it (I would think you would give us credit for at least trying to bring this subject into the open and trying to understand through the thoughts of others, but that is not the tone of your message).
Because he isn't capable of being in that situation. A man wastes hundreds of millions of sperm each time he ejaculates, but when a woman wastes an egg it is made pretty obvious and usually painful even with an unfertilized one.
Unless you're a virgin there's no way for you to be sure this "issue" hasn't arisen for someone you've fucked. ;) You wouldn't necessarily know if a foetus of yours had been killed, a woman would because it's her that has the pregancy to abort.
What exactly are fathers supposed to do that is so difficult? I may be "not getting" something here, but as far as I can see the father isn't expected to do much hard work. In society's eyes, the father who stays at home while the mother works is a hero, yet the mother who stays at home while the father works is taking the easy way out.
Normally, I stay out of discussions on this topic, but I'm going to wade in here.
First off, deena, I agree with you 100%. I feel that whatever my own opinion on this issue is, it's worth a whole load of dingo kidneys. I'm kind of suprised at the reaction of the other Y enhanced folks here.
Mike, what deena wrote *is* totally sexist. Which is as it should be considering the topic. I don't believe she meant that you or any other guy couldn't have an opinion on the subject, but when a course of action is going to take place, unless you are carrying the little bugger, then shut the flock up (no flame intended here, really) and stand by whatever decision your mate has made. When you get right down to it, outside of rape, all matters sexual are decided by the female.
Lastly, guys, there is a form of male birth control, that unless you have the regenerative abilities of a reptile, is 100% effective. The reversal rate is getting better and better. A couple of snips, a whiff of burnt flesh, flush out the pipes and bingo, you're firing blanks. Talk about taking the worries away.
I reckon abortion is pretty selfish in a lot of cases, but I have to say I wouldn't really know LOL! :) But I think a lot of women who abort their pregnancies were just careless and that is so fucking stupid, if you can't say no or use some contraception and then you have to have your own foetus killed just 'cos you couldn't keep your legs together it's pretty sick especially when you consider the numbers of people wanting to adopt babies. I reckon all those babies should be had and put up for adoption, maybe if they got a childless couple to go talk to the girl and see if she still wanted an abortion... I think abortion is acceptable if the baby would be unlikely to survive, or if the woman had been raped or something and made pregnant because that'd be pretty damaging to her psychologically, or if it's just some kid who's like fourteen or something and not fully grown because it'd probably damage her physically, but other than that there's not much reason why they should kill a perfectly healthy baby when some other people can have it, maybe it'd make the woman fat or she just didn't want someone else to have her kid, well yeah I can understand the last one a bit but there are so many people out there who can *never* have their own kids and you'd have to be pretty selfish to choose to kill a baby rather than let someone else have it just for that sort of reason, IMO.
I think it usually is done for reasons that are (un-enlightenedly) selfish. For every abortion prompted by real medical need or severe injury to the fetus, there are probably dozens indulged in as the "lazy" version of birth control. In New York, anyway, I ran into lots of girls who used it that way.
Yes. I think that it would make more sense to have the unwanted babies given to couples looking for adoption. A lot of the shortage of babies for this purpose in America wouldn't exist if many states didn't effectively prohibit cross-racial adoption (a prohibition which is to my mind incredibly barbaric and racist itself).
If we develop the technology to cheaply allow extraction and extra-uterine incubation of the fetus, such procedures may become the most common alternative to abortion. I understand why women don't want to go through the (physical and psychological) anguish of having an unwanted baby.
Under our system of government, "by due process of law". Just as one forfeits the right to "liberty" or "the pursuit of happiness", which one most certainly does at least to a limited extent when one is sentenced to a stretch in a penitentiary.
Btw, the rest of the West only abandoned the death penalty in the last few decades. Jumping on us for keeping it does not show the keenest sense of your own history. Britain hung people into the 1950's, I believe.
Of course not.
Hmmm?
Nope. We have free health care for the poor. It's just not very good, compared to the Western European system ... for the poor. It's actually better for the middle classes and up.
Oddly enough, I'd prefer it the other way round. Then again, to have things your way, you'd have to FORBID people from buying more health care than the NHS provides.
And of course, you don't have it your way in Britain ... upper class people can afford private doctors, or simply go abroad to get better health care. They come to New York all the time for exactly that reason.
(responding blindly...i.e., without reading other responses)
In article , "endless, nameless" wrote:
This is what I don't get...people from other countries commenting negatively about the US death penalty system, comparing it with actual atrocities and making it out to be much worse than it actually is. Sure, it may not be as shocking to me because I live in Texas, the death penalty capital of the US. But there's a certain feeling of "getting one's just desserts" when one gives someone the death penalty.
What people in other countries don't realize is that usually when someone is given the death penalty, it takes years and years and YEARS to finally go through with the sentence, usually because the US justice system gives those given the death penalty a lot of chances to appeal their case, all the way up to the US Supreme Court. And, if that doesn't solve it, one could always get their sentence commutted, or even pardoned, by the state's governor. I can recall one prisoner in Texas who recently got executed got sentenced in 1979. That's a long time to try and prove one's innocence, which this person didn't.
Another thing is the method by which these prisoners get executed. It would sound to foreigners as being a bloody affair, but it's actually tame and a real let-down, really. Here in Texas one gets executed by lethal injection, and I think in California the method of execution is by gas chamber. Those are the two methods of execution this country has. It's purely a states issue...the state determines method of execution and even whether the death penalty is ALLOWED as a punishment.
Read above. I'd rather have it the US's way than the way it is in other countries, btw. It's not like I'd be in danger since I don't committ gruesome murders or anything.
Well, there are some avenues that help poor people out, like Medicaid, which I will admit is a really bad system in serious need of overhaul, but at least it's there. And many workplaces provide workers and their families with insurance policies that are discounted tremendously. I know that under the policy my mom has me in, doctor's visits are $10/visit and prescriptions covered under the plan are $5/prescription. (Just for US readers' benefit, it's PacifiCare. (fishes out insurance card) See?)
Okay, first off, I must say that I am opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, mostly because I think it turns the convict into a martyr in his eyes and the eyes of many d.p. opponents; because I believe that it's inefficient; and because I believe that when the State (which is supposed to represent *all* of its citizens) commits premeditated murder, it becomes no better than the murderer it murders. Oh, yeah, also because I don't like the idea of killing anyone simply for revenge's sake. (All IMO, natch.) The d.p. also annoys me on a utilitarian level-- it's a waste of a perfectly good set of arms and legs-- I'm not saying I'm a softie-- murderers deserve life, no parole-- but I'm saying that they can make themselves useful to the society that they have injured. Hey, there's no law that says that inmates don't have to work to help pay for their upkeep. And those who commit lesser felonies might learn something useful for when they eventually leave prison. (A guy can dream, right?)
It is illegal to impose the death penalty in a State or Federal court for any crime amounting to less than First Degree Murder. (Which includes Felony Murder crimes-- murders committed in the furtherance of a felony.) Also, before the d.p. can be imposed, a separate jury must be formed for the sentencing phase of the trial, to determine if the crime rises to the level to require the d.p. The juries aren't always rubber-stamps, although there are some states that have problems with this-- Texas and Illinois come to mind. The d.p. is NOT the law in ALL of the states, however.
That said, however, it's still the law in many *states.* (And even though there is a federal d.p., I can't remember the last time a federal prisoner was executed.) Individual states are free to choose whichever punishments for Murder In the First Degree (and any other crimes that fall under the states' police power) that they wish, so long as they do not fall under the "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" clause in the Bill of Rights. (However, most corporal punishments, like flogging and castration-- even chemical castration-- are usually considered to be cruel and unusual-- although some offenders have agreed to similar punishments under plea bargains.) Considering that the Constitution was written at a time when a person would be hanged for stealing a horse, things have at least improved a little.
The Supreme Court has pretty much allowed any form of execution from a short list-- electrocution (there's a very long and weird story about the electric chair-- it was used by Edison as an embodyment of the danger of AC current-- he wanted to build DC power plants instead, so he tried to give AC bad PR.), lethal injection (which is an overdose of anaesthetic, and is the predominant form of execution in states with a d.p.), hanging (not used much anymore-- I think either), gas chamber (also not used much anymore), and firing squad (recently stopped by Utah, thankfully it was the last state with such a practice.)
My point is that it's a decision that the democratically elected legislature of each state is free to make, and if the majority of that state's citizens opposed it, then they would elect representatives who would remove it from the list of punishments. It's not like we live in a country like Saudi Arabia, where the citizens have abosolutely -0- input on the punishments for crimes. The majority of Americans *want* the death penalty for some crimes, and even though I disagree with them, the majority rules in a democracy, with, of course, some limits imposed by the Bill of Rights to protect the individual from the mob.
Now, even though it's a decision that states may choose freely, the way it has been imposed by juries is a mess. The Furman study shows that a person murdering a caucasian is 11 times more likely to get the death penalty than a person who murders a non-caucasian. Interestingly enough, though, the race of the felon does NOT play a statistical role-- it's the race of the victim that is statistically significant. There have been other developments of late regarding the large number of people who have been wrongly accused, convicted, and sentenced to death, but I don't have the numbers handy right now.
The big downside to the d.p. is that if the State kills the wrong person, then I feel that all of its citizens are diminished. Then again, I also think that the hotheads in favor of it should have to watch every execution as well. Maybe it'll cool down their blood lust.
Yes, and in many cases, innocent people have proved that they were wrongfully convicted. Scary, if you ask me, because you know that not every innocent got a chance to prove his/her innocence. Also scarier in the light of the recent scandal in Illinois, where prosecutors and police fabricated evidence in a number of cases where innocents were sentenced to death. Of course, those responsible for the fabrications now are facing similar charges, but not anything that they'd get the d.p. for. Ironic, n'est-ce pas?
Actually, electrocution is still used, as is hanging, and, until recently, the firing squad. In fact, there was recently a case involving Florida's ancient electric chair, nicknamed "Sparky" because it had a nasty habit of malfunctioning and making the condemned catch fire. :P Nonetheless, it was decided that it wasn't cruel and unusual. Electrocution is a pretty grim way to kill people, IMO.
Of course, I could be snide and say its the same "justice" system that we inherited from our British friends when we were part of their little Empire, but I'll refrain. ;-) I have to admit that after a number of years of exposure to our judicial system, I think it's a mess, but no more so than any other country's courts. I also have to admit a preference for Civil Law judicial systems, mainly because juries slow the process down, and having a judicial panel serve as the finder of fact speeds things up tremendously-- it also forces attorneys to cut the crap and get to the chase.
Unless, of course, you get framed. ;-)
Well, as shitty as our healthcare system is, I pay $66/mo and for that, I get the best doctors and medications, with extremely low co-pays. That seems okay by me. If docs can't make a decent living, then the really good docs won't make themselves available to the healthcare system. There has to be something in it for them to make them work 80 hour weeks.
As for the poor, well, there are always county hospitals, who are required to treat everyone. But, yeah, the poor do tend to get the short end-- where don't they get the short end though? Sure, they may get a little better healthcare in England, but they're still poor and still miserable, I bet. As for the US, there needs to be some reform of the healthcare system-- perhaps some sort of a deal so that everyone can get inexpensive health insurance-- but not at the expense of undermining our whole healthcare delivery system. But that's a whole other topic for another day.
Many employers provide health insurance as a benefit, but as I said, I'll leave this for another day.
One last thing about the d.p.-- you have to keep in mind that here in the US we have a much higher murder rate than almost any other industrialized country. So we tend to be a little more cavalier about our view on it, I guess.
Anyway, I've got work to do now.
rich.
Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.
I wonder if this would be considered attempted murder? And if they'd succeeded, would they themselves be guilty of first degree murder? Is judicial murder considered to be "homicide"?
Also, they have less opportunity than American poor people. Which means that they are less likely to eventually be able to afford really good healthcare (most significant in their middle age to senior years, btw).
Not as miserable as some poor bleeder dieing because he`s on a credit blacklist
Amazingly enough, with all these "oportunities", large numbers of Americans are poor and remain so all the way through their lives.
For the ill in this situation there is very little to recomend this "posibility" that perhaps if they are diligent, in the future they can afford the treatment they need now.
??? What country do you live in? The USA actually *has* free health care, you know ... it's called Medicare and Medicaid.
"Large numbers" compared to *where*? Ameica has greater social mobility than most other countries, even in the West, which is why people come here from all over the world seeking work and business opportunities.
I am aware of that , but i have been informed that it is of A VERY low quality. So low in fact that it actualy drags down the average healthcare levels of the usa below that most of western europe You only have to do a comparison between the infant mortality rates (a good indicator) of the united states and the uk to see this
There are large numbers of people who find themselves unable to get decent healthcare. This is pretty damn "unneccessary", given Americas position in the world
Why should it be more prevelant amoungst your poor , than the poor in the uk?
Incidently... my appologies i didn`t make myself clear, i meant deaths during childbirth or ammeadiatly after. I couldn`t think of a conveniant term :-/
I think it's pretty unlikely there will be such a sudden policy change
A number of reasons, actually. I think a large part of it is due to the fact that in the UK drug usage is slightly more accepted than in the US. You guys have a registered addicts' program, right? Over here, most politicians wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. We still have a rigidly puritanical society that would make drug usage here in the US less accepted, which draws the less accepted in society to it...my opinion, really, and I don't know too many poor people who are actually doing drugs. My parents managed to be raised in a very poor environment and they turned out fine, without having to go do drugs or anything.
Another point...I asked some people what the attitude is in England about the government, and most of what I heard entailed having you guys think government should solve all the problems for you, should give you jobs and all sorts of entitlements, that sort of thing. And I didn't hear that much about hard work being actually rewarded. Which is such a shame, really, because over here we don't really rely on government to do things for us and we certainly do reward hard work (and if usu. racist bosses don't they could always be sued and/or spoken out against). We're a feistily independent people (well, most adults are or strive to be) and I like that.
deena lissa why do I suddenly feel like singing "Proud to be an American"? ew...grade school assembly memories...yuck!
Of course, that's largely a consequence of your own moral beliefs. I doubt you'd hang out with sleazy types, and hence wouldn't tend to meet them. (And they'd probably consider you to be boringly square, since their idea of "fun" tends to be limited to drugged-out partying).
I also don't know very many people who are into drugs, and nobody who's currently doing anything harder than marijuana, for the same reason. I'm sure that if I was willing to make sleazier friends, I'd meet a LOT of druggies on all economic levels :)
It's obvious from your posts that you turned out pretty fine too ... :)
imho Government should really thought of as a tool, not something to be resisted by definition This is where I part company with many american folk :-) You outline above your objections to a way of "organising" a society by pointing out that any security we may gain, draws from our "fredooms", but this is a VERY old discussion. Society itself is built on these ideas..
"I will not go around hiting people because one day i may get hit too"
Is not disimilar to
"I will cooperate within reason with the society i`m living in because one day i may need its help"
or
"I will encourage society to help people, because one day i may need help myself"
Many Americans to my mind take an almost absolutist position on an issue that is really a matter of "organic growth" . In the same way our present rules about not hitting people evolved from trial and error, untill most people accepted that they gained more from not hitting people than they lost in the freedoms removed, and finaly the whole thing solidified into a rule that was enforcable, so our approach to those needing help evolves in the same way.
The government intervention you decry did good...it helped wipe out disease and bring mass literacy and numeracy.
And I didn't hear that much about hard work
"hard work in itself" isn`t rewarded anywhere :-)
Independent of what? If you think you are independent of each other then you are mistaken imo
I don't think one has to be non-reliant on government in order to resist it. Sure, there is a fine distinction between the two terms, but there is that distinction. "I'm not going to insist on politicians solving all my problems" is not the same as "I'm not listening to anything those politicians are saying".
pointing out that
discussion.
day i may need its help"
myself"
The first and second statements I wholeheartedly agree with. The third sounds too dependent on others. May just be a case of semantics, though. And a case of the old loner/isolationist in me talking.
But government didn't actually go out and do those things first...the PEOPLE took action at first, then with the help of government diseases were eliminated and literacy for the populous was attained.
Well, at least here in America we still have the stories of those who made it from being at the state of poverty to being wealthy, because of their hard work and energy. I know my parents are living proof that hard work can and does get rewarded, for they lived in poverty when they were younger, then built themselves up and became a part of the US "middle class", which is different from the UK definition of "middle class" but still is something worth attaining.
reward
I'm sure we can't get along without the aid of others, but if you start becoming too reliant on that help you run the risk of giving your whole self up. Just my opinion.
deena lissa gosh, I guess my loner tendencies are still with me
The problem isn't our "poor", it's our "underclass". Which is to say, not the working poor (most of whom work their way out of poverty within a decade) but the poor who have abandoned (or never had) any vision of any better possibility for themselves.
The very openness of our society means that those who remain poor usually do so because of some lack in themselves, rather than merely the accident of being born into a given social class. This tends to concentrate serious drug abuse and violence into our poor (because the non-violent, non-druggie poor usually aren't "poor" for more than a short period in their lives).
Unlike in less mobile societies, where you can be smart, hardworking, yet condemned to poverty because of your accent or the way you dress.
I'm opposed to the dp on ethical grounds, per se: I think the right to life is inalienable.
I do understand that a case can be made that the dp can be tolerated (a) for the gravest crimes and (b) when there is no alternative. Now (a) often applies, but in modern industrialised societies I can't see that (b) does. In a postapocolyptic wasteland with no prison system, (b) might apply once more - but we're not there yet.
It seems strange to use killing people as a way of showing people that they mustn't kill people.
Chicken or egg?
People often (at the least) base the way they relate to others on the norms of the society they live in, using people in authority as models whose examples they adapt to their own lives. In a society where killing someone is used by the state as a sanction, is it surprising that within that society a larger number of people are willing to kill someone?
I agree with you there, but unfortunately, most in the US don't share our high regard for human life. (Well, at least not to the point of actively opposing the dp.)
Well, it's a political thing more than anything else-- endorsing the d.p. allows politicians to show that they're "tough on crime," even though statistically the death penalty is *not* a deterrent to crime. And these politicians who like to pretend that they're "tough on crime" don't give a damn about attacking the roots of crime.
I agree-- it's pretty stupid, in my book. That and the so-called "war on drugs," which has done nothing other than put addicts in prison, rather than, again, treating the root causes of the problem. But, again, the "war on drugs" is a political ploy as well-- if you're a supporter of the W.O.D., then you're a "law & order" type of politician, and then all the folks out in the sticks will vote for you. Otherwise, you get slandered as "soft on crime." (Which, is, of course, stupid, but people buy into it anyway.)
BTW, don't even try to guess my political view-- I think most major parties in the country are pretty much useless on the whole. They've done more to polarize and hold back American society than any so-called "conspiracy" could.
It's a little of both, actually. I think that the main reason, though, for the high number of homicides is the easy access everyone here has to guns. It's too easy to kill a person with a gun. Just pull the trigger and bang! Now, if they had to do it with their bare hands, I'd wager that the murder rate would drop quite a bit. BUT, there's that whole gun ownership thing here in the US, and nothing's ever going to interfere with that. Besides, even if they outlawed guns tomorrow, there are still more guns here than people. Scary, huh? ;-) As for my stand on gun ownership, I think that it's okay, so long as nobody gets hurt. ;-)
No, not really.
rich.
Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.
Well, yeah, the symbolic value of the "war on drugs" is wholly undercut by the readily demonstrable fact that the criminalization of the drugs creates a whole criminal economy which would fall apart in a trice were drugs to be commercially available like any other substances. The "war" spreads the damage from the addicts (and their loved ones) to everybody else, by encouraging an atmosphere of extreme violence in the slums.
Yeah, but criminals wouldn't stop using guns simply because they were illegal. Why should they? They're in the BUSINESS of doing illegal things. If anything, their lives would become easier, because they wouldn't have to worry about being shot by honest citizens.
(Remember, I was talking about the Murder Rate, and I still am.)
Not really. Considering that most murder victims know their murderers rather well (the statistic is approx. 70%, IIRC), and considering that most criminals attack people who are unarmed (the only people I know that carry handguns all the time are cops), and furthermore considering that a person with a handgun in his house is 50 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder, I don't buy the argument that allowing people to carry handguns everywhere will stop the majority of murders, UNLESS each and every citizen were required to carry a weapon, and be trained in its use. Of course, that'd make our society just as much of a police state than if only the police carried guns. I.e., if everyone has to be "deputized." And you know what? You'll *still* have some nutjob eventually start shooting people in the street, only the result will be that he (and everyone around him) will be met with a hail of bullets. (Talk about your friendly-fire casualties!) It's part of human nature.
But, of course, hangun-banning in the US is as unrealistic a solution as arming the entire population. The political will for either one is insufficient at best. And, besides, there are over 250 million handguns already floating around, so it's not like they'd be difficult to find.
Unfortunately, there are never any easy answers... well, unless you're talking about the TV Guide crossword puzzle. ;-) The best you can do is try to help others as best you can and watch your Six. ;-)
rich.
Jane: You know, I don't know why people say we have a bad attitude.
On 27 Apr 1999 07:44:10 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (JBassior), and it said:
I can only agree with this. The legalization of marajuanna ( is one of my little causes. I don't smoke it myself, but I've had many friends who did so, and while it perhaps did lower some of their levels of ambition a bit, as well as being a generally bad lifestyle for one trying to do well in school, it wasn't the deadly poison some would have you believe it is.
Personally, I see most substance prohibitions as being linked more to cultural stereotypes than to race. For instance, alcohol prohibition was discussed for nearly a century without it passing, but during World War 1 and the anti-German sentiment that came with it, alcohol, particularly beer, was seen as a "German" thing, and in the political atmosphere of the time, the temperence movement combined with the war hysteria made such an idea passable.
Marajuana was used for a very long time before it's prohibition, and was largely seen as a "black jazz musician" thing. It wasn't until white suburban kids started using it that it was prohibited.
I've been thinking about this, and though I am typically very against the disarmament of the civilian population, I've also realized that, as far as controling gun violence goes, it wouldn't be as ineffective as the NRA would have you believe. Yes, then only criminals would have guns, but you could identify a criminal merely by the fact that he has a gun, and thus have the legal means to take care of a problem before it gets out of hand.
Of corse, this only works assuming these things:
1. The civilized, law abiding population is willing to give up it's guns. This is the reason we have that second amendment, to ensure that, unless an ultrasignifigant supermajority of the population says otherwise, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the second amendment were amended, I think that'd be a pretty good indication that the vast majority are okay with it. And I seriously think the Supreme Court should be more rigorous than it is in striking down laws that are unconstitutional.
2. There is sufficient means with which to enforce such a law. This would be literally impossible if 1 was not true. If disarmament was widely accepted, it would be possible.
I don't agree that a whole population should be prohibited from something that a small minority has managed to mess up; in other words, I don't like the idea that one guy can screw it up for everyone else. But, I also don't agree that it wouldn't work, given a favorible political condition.
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:22:48 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Tarvok), and it said:
Damn freudian slips. I was specifically trying to avoid the "R" word, and accidentally put it somewhere other than where I intended to leave it out. I meant to say, "being linked more to cultural stereotypes than to _health_. :(
I reckon they should legalise most drugs, educate people about how dangerous some of them are, make money off taxing them, get rid of most of the drug dealers 'cos it'd all be sold legally, and people wouldn't ever get into trouble just for smoking a bit of pot, hehe - that or make tobacco and alcohol illegal 'cos I reckon there's a bit of a double standard there.
I think the US could have a trial run of that, but knowing the way our society is many Americans wouldn't have it, stating that "drugs are bad" and "we shouldn't legalize drugs because they're bad". I do know people ARE taking very small steps towards that goal, though, as the case of the passage of that bill in California's congress regarding medicinal marijuana states.
I don't know, though, about the "most drugs" part. Most drugs seem to really have a negative affect on one's biological processes. But then again the same could be said for tobacco and alcohol...um, then again, one can smoke a cigarette or drink a glass of wine and not immediately afterward die of cardiac arrest.
I don't know about the issue anymore. I've seen way too many stories of people's lives getting messed up due to their drug addictions, but I also look at the actual drug itself and its effect on the body and think, "is this really worse than smoking or drinking?" It's all so gray.
deena lissa no matter what, though, I'm staying away from drugs -- I don't want to risk the chance of having them completely mess me up -- whereas I know I can handle alcohol -- "I don't believe in dragons or blues...." -- Duran Duran, "Khanada" (1981) Daria: I know what you mean, and that scares me.
I agree that "drugs are bad", but I don't think that all "bad" things should be criminalized. I've never used drugs myself (aside from a very occasional and moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages), and never intend to; however, we aren't helping people by making them criminals on top of being addicts. As I think you agree, from your post.
The prevention of the use of marijuana as a painkiller is stupid, especially since most of the alternative treatments are even MORE addictive.
Tobacco and alcohol are "drugs". They're just drugs intimately connected with American tradition (this country was economically founded, in part, on the raising of tobacco and the processing of sugar into rum, remember the "Triangle Trade"?) Marijuana almost became a traditional American drug (Colonial hemp farmers smoked some of their product) but instead became associated with what was deemed an "inferior" Latin culture (legacy of the Mexican-American War and its aftermath) and hence was rejected when the 20th century, with its mania for regulation, rolled around.
I agree with you that avoiding drug use is a good thing in general. As for alcohol, our culture makes it hard to avoid completely. However, in small quantities its effects seem to be benign to neutral, so you should be ok if you just don't drink to the point of serious intoxication.
Not only that, but it's the only effective treatment for some eye problems (glaucoma I think) - there's a famous magazine columnist in the UK, Sue Arnold, who reports that she can only see anything when she's smoked a joint: I think it reduces the fluid pressure in the eyes or something. It also seems to be the best way for MS sufferers to reduce the problem of the shakes, it suppresses involuntary movements enough for them to live a fairly normal lifestyle. Sadly, taking this medication still entails joining the criminal underclass in the UK, though I think an MS charity did take a bunch of sufferers to Amsterdam at one point so they could smoke dope legally.
Some large scale clinical trials are now going to be done with cannabis in capsule form, but it looks like the government is only interested in allowing the creation of a dope drug that the pharmaceutical industry can patent and make money out of, rather than legalising the raw material itself.
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:27:28 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from deena lissa , and it said:
A small step, but I like the fact that the law passed. I voted in favor, after all.
Well, I think that, once we've gotten this "absolutely no drugs at all" prohibition out of the way, it'll be up to the FDA to decide what can and can't be sold, and under what labels. Personally, I say sell marajuanna like tobacco, and label crack with something simelar to "rat poison." ;) Actually, I thought about that once. I thought about mixing some crack with something that smells good to a rat. Just think: "<sniff, sniff> Hmm... something good to eat... <taste> whoah! something _really_ good to ead_ <munch munch> goodtoeadgoodtoeatgoodtoeatwhoahwhoahwhoah <croak>"
Actually, once I put it in print, that looks pretty sick...
God... that's, like, the most horrible thing I've ever read. Yet for some reason it made me laugh out embarrasingly loud in the middle of the computer lab... heh heh...
What I always found amusing with my little rats (I have two girls, Jabberwock and Bandersnatch) is to give them just a *few* SMALL tastes of cotton candy, once in a blue moon. They turn into hyperactive weasels on acid, even more so than usual.
Y'know, I found that funny. Hilarious in fact. Sure beats the living daylights out of my trying to get out of offending nearly everyone because of my probably extremist tenents. (Apology posting will come soon enough.)
Thanks for getting me to smile. Haven't done it in a while.
Wrong. The last known innocent shot to death by Cuban state security that I know of was March 29, 1997 his name was Joachim Lovschall he was studying Spanish at the University of Havana. He was shot to death by Cuban state security. He was later robbed by them. More information and all sides views on the issues including the Cuban government's at http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/joachim
Not to mention the Cubans massacred in Cuba that we know of such as 41 men, women, and children on July 13, 1994 by agents of the Cuban government more info at http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/justice.html
Cuban marine patrols, determined to stop refugees from reaching the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, have repeatedly tossed grenades and shot at fleeing swimmers and recovered some bodies with gaff hooks.
Read the full story at http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/us.rips.cruelty.html
According to author Hugh Thomas , who offers a conservative estimate, 5,000 Cubans were executed by 1970.
On 23 Apr 1999 21:50:20 -0400, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (William Ian Gasarch), and it said:
For the same reason most cartoons can walk off the screan wet, and walk back on dry. The artists are lazy. ;)
Can't come up with any right now, but I'll probably think of something later.
She's the sort that can (and does) walk through high school blindfolded. Jand might have her straight C's in math due to a lack of studying, but Daria probably aces the class, also without studying. English is easy, because she enjoys reading and writing. Her powerful memory, and her literacy, and her perceptiveness, enables her to walk through history with no sweat. Economics should be no problem to her, she seems halfway competant in visual art, and science is probably the toughest class there, but she takes it seriously (even managed to save a project destroyed by Brittany's meddling). Quite simply put, Daria is really good. Indeed, I think when she reaches college, if she choses to go into science or engineering, she'll suffer for having to work to learn for the first time in her life. But, she'll likely major in journalism or English, so she shouldn't have a huge problem there, either.
This is funny. But...
(in a Jake voice): But I _like_ mountain dew!
People identify with Daria, and I know I've often thought, "What would I do in that situation? Or what would I do if I was just there, a part of the story? Or What would my place at Lawndale be if I were there?" Ideas flow from this show, and the kind of people that like the show are also competant writers. Think about it. The Simpsons may have run longer, and be more popular, but how many diehard Simpsons fans do you think are excellent writers? Star Trek has more because it's been around longer, and it also has a highly literate fan base.
IMO, discontinuity. Actually, Quinn's come up with some pretty convoluted excuses for the various times Daria has "claimed" to be her sister, though I can't remember any off hand.
Now _there's_ a can of worms! Prepare for the ride of your life, this thread probably won't die for another month or so. ;)
Actually, I think Daria's feelings for Treant prove that it's not so much the lack of intellect that turns her away from people, it's the sheer hypocracy that surrounds her that she doesn't like. Ever notice how she gets along ok with Kevin and Brittany (even if she can't resist poking fun at them every now and then, though I think Jane does that way more than her); her genuine dislike is reserved for Quinn (who is, IMO, smart enough to know better), Principal Li, and others who aren't just unintelligent, but malicious, even if they _are_ intelligent. She respects Treant because he doesn't pretend to be anything he's not, and doesn't get down on anyone else for being who they are.
Actually, as I wrote that "doesn't pretend" bit, I thought about his music. ;) But then I remembered that I actually like their sound at the beginning of "Ill." The lyrics could probably use some work, but I actually like the music. Not incredibly complex, but it works, nonetheless. "Ouch, My Nose" isn't bad.
Daria: "My goal is not to wake up at fourty realising that I've wasted my life in a job I hate because I was forced to choose a carreer in my teens." Actually, I think she'll probably write. Remember what she had herself doing in the future in "Write Where it Hurts?"
Umm... that's "See Jane Run." :) Actually, the only eps I've not liked were the ones where I was forced to endure absolutely intolerable characters ("Depth Takes a Holiday," and "The Lost Girls" are the first to come to mind.) My favorite is "Ill."
Are you referring to Val? If so, I've heard certain groups use certain types of words she used, but only she used them _all_, and badly, too. If you're talking about everyone else, there are definately cartoon exaggerations (like Brittany in particular), but I don't see anything especially unreasonable.
Having attended Edison, Holy Land of the Nerds, I am not qualified to answer this. ;)
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:26:03 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Tarvok), and it said:
Erm... hate to reply to my own post, but before reading people's reactions to that statement, I would like to state that this is probably the stupidest thing I have ever posted to atd. That statement had more to do with my own difficulties in second semester Intro to Math Analysis (calculus) than with real life. Had I majored in a non-science major, the math I got in high school would've sufficed for all my college math requirements.
Also, it costs more to show characters in different sets of clothes. They've done it with Daria, and sometimes other members of her family, because it was important to the plot. They did it at least once with the Fashion Club, again because it would have been too silly not to (people don't step into hot tubs clad in street clothes!). But where they can avoid it, they do.
She probably studies a bit, but not that hard because she gets it right the first time.
Yup. I was like that in History classes ...
IMHO, Daria's memory is close to photographic, and she's incredibly perceptive. Both of these, incidentally, can be curses if you are also an exceedingly honest person, intolerant of hypocrisy, as she is ...
Heh, it's largely applied cynicism ...
To the point where if Jane wasn't her best friend, they might be rivals ...
All part of "reality" to her, I think.
She's a supergenius-level intellect, in my opinion. Frighteningly intelligent, from some people's viewpoint, especially when combined with her sarcasm. Which is one reason she doesn't have many friends.
*The Simpsons* is a less realistic setting. The satire is more outrageous, but this also makes it gentler. Springfield is too silly a place to imagine *really* living in, whereas everyone knows a Lawndale.
Trent's does his share of posing, but he at least half-realizes it, and is willing to accept needling on that score in good fun (see his reaction to Daria's humor in "Road Worriers"). And, unlike most people, he is actually comfortable with Daria's honesty.
I think Jane genuinely dislikes Kevin and Brittany, while Daria likes Brittany, and tolerates Kevin.
Mixed feelings there. She loves Quinn in some ways, realizes that she's actually a very smart girl, but is horrified by the extent to which Quinn is willing to subordinate her own judgement to the opinions of other people. In "Quinn the Brain" I think it appalls her how easy it would be for her to assume Quinn's role ... it's a "Temptation of the Hero" type scene, to wax a bit Campbellian ...
Principal Li and Sandi are as close to out-and-out villains as the series gets. Note, incidentally, that both of them are obsessed with the impression they make upon others who are in a position to reward them, and will cheerfully step on anyone who isn't.
Very good way of putting it. And the fact that Daria and Trent actually value each other for attributes which each of them values, and wants to be valued for, is *exactly* why I wouldn't describe Daria's attraction as a "crush", or Trent's response as merely "humoring a kid".
In "See Jane Run", Trent makes it very explicitly obvious that he truly does care about his music. It's implicitly stated in several other eps, too.
I agree.
The essence of satire is humorous exaggeration, after all.
This brings up a question I would like to pose to atd : who are more cynical, Jane and Daria, or the Fashion Club, Ms, Li, etc.?
Daria, its true, is the classic image of the 'walking around in broad daylight with a lantern' cynic, someone who realises that the world is full of corrupt, lazy, stupid people and tells it to everyone's face. But to look at it another way, she's the idealist. She refuses to accept the status quo, even more than Jane does, and has the sheer strength of will that, on the few occasions when a situation is intolerable to her (i.e., "Arts n' Crass") or is goaded by someone she respects ("The New Kid"), she usual can change things, or at least shake them up.
Quinn, OTOH, is a cynic of a much darker sort. It seems to me that she's every bit as intelligent and perceptive as her sister, but somewhere along the way, she decided that instead of either change the world or simply accepting it as it is (like Jodie does), she would take every advantage that she could of it. She doesn't care about anything except keeping up her comfrtable existence, no matter who she has to burn to do it.
Needless to say, Sandi is worse still, a self-conscious manipulator who is driven, not just for self-satisfaction, but sheer domination.
Analysis of Ms. Li, and of the other members of the FC, is left as an exercise to the reader. I'm sure some intersting perspectives can be expressed :-)
So again, I ask : who's the real cynic, the sarcastic idealist, or the crass and egotistical puppeteers around her?
I'd plump for Sandi in particular, but if we're going to compare the whole Fashion Club as a unit I'd pick Ms. Li.
I'd say that Daria is an extreme idealist who is forced to assume cynicism as a defense because otherwise the nature of the world would hurt her too much. If you notice, injustice and stupidity disgust, and sometimes anger her. And it's not only when she's the victim ... she definitely cares about what happens to other people, she just tries to pretend she doesn't.
Incidentally, I think that Jane is also idealistic, underneath, but she's been more badly disheartened than Daria. This is probably because her family, with the exception of Trent, has generally failed her. I suspect that meeting Daria has rekindled some of the idealism within her (and probably helped her artisitic career considerably, since her art is one thing she is idealistic about). I also think that Trent realizes this, which is one reason he so strongly approves of Daria.
You didn't mention Trent, but one way in which he is very like Jane is that he is cynical about many things, but very idealistic about his music. His idealism responds to hers, which is is part of why he enjoys her company.
To an extent. Quinn has a conscience, she just suppresses it. She's decided that one has to "go along to get along" and is determined to get along with supreme competence. But you'll notice that Quinn is uncomfortable when she realizes she is actually hurting somebody.
True, she treats guys as disposable, but keep in mind that she's immature ... she's only 15 years old, and dating is just a game to her. She may not even consider the possibility that the guys involved have any feelings to get hurt.
There have been eps which show that she's one of the nicer members of the Fashion Club. And certainly she's the smartest.
I think Sandi's truly an evil person. She's ruthless for small stakes, and I think would be even more ruthless for larger ones.
Tiffany's a mental null. She's not very bright, just bright enough to be able to conform and follow Sandi's lead. Sandi likes her because she's biddable.
Stacy is basically a nice girl, but she's neurotically afraid of rejection, and Sandi manipulates her through this fear. Sandi likes her because this makes her easy to control.
Sandi hates Quinn because Quinn doesn't need her. Quinn cooperates with Sandi because memebership in the Fashion Club makes being popular easier, but in truth Quinn would be popular even without the Fashion Club, and they both know it. Sandi can't really control Quinn, so she fears her, and with someone like Sandi fear turns into hatred very easily.
Ms. Li is a petty tyrant. She lacks emotional satisfaction in her own life, so she tries to get it by keeping tight control over everyone around her. She justifies this to herself by claiming that she does it all for the collective good, hence her constant invocation of "Laaawwwndale!"
In a different setting she might be a REAL tyrant ... I don't think her resemblance to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung is accidental on the part of the artists. She tries her best to tyrannize Lawndale.
I think she's actually somewhat unaware of the wrongness of what she does, and to that extent she is less cynical than Sandi.
On 25 Apr 1999 23:44:45 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (JBassior), and it said:
I'd say this agrees with my definition of a cynic. She's more idealistic than the avarage person, despite her cynicism. Her "base" idealism is so high, in fact, that she _must_ compromise her ideals if she is to survive mentally. This compromise makes her the cynic she is, but she's still more idealistic than just about anyone else, with the possible exception of Mr. O'Neil.
There's something about this discussion that touched a chord in me. _Very_ excellently put.
She laughs at the world to avoid having to cry at it.
Incidentally, I think the reason she seems to despise O'Neil, despite his being on the surface in some ways a kindred spirit, is that his "idealism" is more a deliberate self-blinding and self-paralysis. By contrast, Daria insists on seeing things the way they really are, and on acting upon what she knows to be real rather than what society tells her is supposed to be real. I think she's disgusted at O'Neil's pretensions to idealism, and betrayal of what ideals he may actually have.
Witness his sucking up to Val, and his automatic assumption that Daria (being a "teen") would be excited at the prospect of meeting Val. He rather deserved what he got, in that she humiliated him in his own class.
It's not really "embezzlement", it's rewarding herself for doing such a good job, because the Board of Ed sure won't ... ;-) I'm sure that she tells herself something like that.
People like Ms. Li are good at finding excuses for their worst actions.
On Tue, 27 Apr 99 23:14:43 GMT, [email] (Mindy) wrote:
I recently considered a fanfic based (extremely) loosely on _Caesar and Cleopatra_ , in which a dashing, but rather older, male sub comes into class and hopelessly disrupts the balance of power in Quinn's favor before blithely going off to another school and breaking Quinn's heart. However, I am up to my eyeballs in half-finished fanfic already, and moreover I fear that Shaw's ghost would haunt me unto eternity if I were to desecrate his work that way :-) Anyone else want to take a shot at it?
Assuming (uses sarcasm)==(cynic) just doesn't add up for me. It's a huge oversimplification (it may even be cynical). Why does Daria use sarcasm? Purely to promote her self-interest?
I don't think that "cynic", as I understand the term, applies to Daria; as you say, it fits other Lawndalers better. Daria's ethics do influence her behaviour, leading her at times to courses of action that are not the simplest way to satisfy her own needs or wants: ergo, not a cynic. She may have a contempt for elements of popular culture, but not for culture _per se_ (look at her reading!): ergo, not a cynic. And she lacks the ostentation of the cynic: she doesn't go to great lengths to draw attention to herself.
I can't see any of the Daria cast copying Diogenes's "show and tell" (unless Upchuck's frustration unhinges him), but there are certainly Lawndalers whose actions seem to be guided by their own self-interest, scarcely modified by ethical considerations: Ms Li's pursuit of her own career or Sandi's taste for power, for example.
What about Kevin as the true cynic? Well, I'm not sure he has *contempt* for culture - perhaps it just doesn't register on his radar: unproven. He has been seen to take the simple course regardless of ethics ("It's shrinkage, Babe!"): a cynical indicator there.
I accept that my understanding of "cynic" is flavoured by having studied philosophy. But if we forget the Cynics and define cynic simply as someone who believes everyone is motivated by nothing other then self-interest, then how can someone as reflective as Daria hold that view? She's got to know at least one person - herself - makes non-selfish choices now and then, even if she *poses* as a cynic. Example: she withheld chocolate from the lady whose doctor had forbidden it, because it was the right thing to do; but brushed it off IIRC as not wanting to be up on a manslaughter rap. She plays down her own altruism: that's humility, not cynicism.
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:58:44 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Schol-R-LEA;2), and it said:
<snip excellent discussion>
If I am thinking correctly (don't particularly feel like bothering to check a dictionary) a cynic is someone who's given up trying to change things for the better, and instead has compromised their ideals as a result. A cynic typically describes themselves as a "realist." My family has two major cynics in it: myself, and my mom. (In other words, TDH had a point when he said in response to a statement of mine with, "And I thought Daria was cynical!") However, from her point of view, I am the cynic, whereas _she_ is a "realist."
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:45:57 -0700, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from TDH , and it said:
I just realized that in my answer, I completely passed this question. Suffice it to say I agree with you on this.
Yeesh, I think in my rant, I completely forgot what the original question was. Yeah, he's in denial. Probably because he _does_ like having Daria around, and it's much easier to deal with when he doesn't know the younger girl has a crush on him.
It's animation, baby! "Daria" is laid out at MTV Animation in New York City, but the final animation is done this season at Plus One Animation in South Korea. The reason why everyone wears the same clothes is because the simpler one keeps it for the overseas production facilities the less chance they get to screw things up.
She can do her schoolwork in her sleep.
Totally agree.
Nope
Yep.
Read any of mine? <set "fishing for compliments mode OFF> I think it's because so many of Daria's fans are LIKE Daria...literate, intelligent people with ideas.
Classic short attention spans.
First off, the episode is called "Pierce Me". I have speculated, in one of my fics, that Trent can't go into book stores in Lawndale because of his mis-spent youth which included shoplifting at every single one.
She's a born journalist and she will probably be a journalism major in College.
I like all the episodes that don't suck. The only two that do suck are "Daria!" and "Depth Takes A Holiday" both of which you probably haven't seen.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:00:36 -0700, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Michelle Klein-Hass), and it said:
That actually sounds reasonable. I have a friend (or should I say, had; haven't seen him in years) who was smart, literate, and probably took a "five finger discount" at every bookstore (and I know he did at a few) in his quest to expand his roleplaying materials collection. He doesn't do that (or the drugs, or anything else like that) any more (from what I've heard), but Treant seems like the sort that would have liked books, lacked the money to get them, and figured theres nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught (and then got caught). ;) Corse, he's grown up now, and doesn't do that anymore, but, well, kids make mistakes. (This coming from a guy who qualified as "kid" as little as three years ago.)
Yes. Incidentally, I agree with Michelle Klein-Hass that the Lanes are probably very rich, but that doesn't mean that the young Trent had any money of his own. Especially given his parents' apparent "turn em loose to forage" attitude towards childrearing.
You might equally ask why Brittany is always dressed as a cheerleader and Kevin as a football player. The way the characters are drawn is symbolic, it's not meant to be realistic. Only when it's important to the storyline are their clothes changed.
She hates normal, stupid, people.
She likes books. She's very literary. She also enjoys writing.
She's an intellectual. You can be curious about the world and have a thirst for knowledge and still be a total misanthrope. Her academic success is just a by-product of her intellectualism
We don't get those in the UK. The ads are only at the end on C5, and I always turn the TV off as soon as the credits finish rolling so I don't know what ads they put with Daria here.
Daria fans are also literary, maybe that's why they like Daria.
This is one of the great mysteries of our time. Maybe it's meant to point up the blind stupidity of Quinn's friends.
Definitely. The real question though is whether he fancies her.
Unless perhaps she aspires to join the trenchcoat mafia, seemingly not. (I wonder if those guys were Daria fans?)
Agreed, also it's cheaper to give them the same clothes in each episode and means they don't have to think up new outfits for them all the time. Also maybe if they wore different clothes all the time, it'd detract from the actual point that they wear "fashionable clothes".
There's nothing wrong with being normal! (Never mind, in-joke, nobody knows what I'm on about, that's probably a good thing.... <g>)
Book burning's bad for the environment as well. <nods sagely>
Agreed. Maybe she knows that getting good qualifications is useful as well.... Not sure how the US school system works, do you get grades for each subject at the end or just a thing saying you've graduated? I have no idea....
It's been so long since MTV UK showed Daria that I can't remember what adverts they put on.
Maybe they're just obsessive and have nothing better to do. ;)
Sandi seems to know, but maybe is saving it as a potential weapon for future use.
I don't think he fancies her, but he seems to like her.
Oh, but I can. <shudder> When it was in the 1100 Sunday slot it was for My Plastic Pony, doll accessories, and other things aimed at the under-11s. Not *quite* got the demographics right, perhaps?
Tonight Daria was followed by ads for Tango, Cheestrings, a chewing gum that claims to be "the easy way to cleaner, whiter teeth" (nice irony after TALD), a long distance telephone company, a kitchen surface cleaner, a dishwasher cleaner, Sugar Puffs ("with Rugrats stickers!") a spinning top toy, and a credit card. Hmm, they've adjusted the demographics, then?
After the ads, from the in-vision continuity announcer: "Oh my goodness, will that girl ever smile, she is *so* grumpy, I can't believe it. Anyway, tune in to Daria same time next week..." O-kaaay... 8-)
Yes, there is a symbolism in having them look the same all the time. Almost like the stylized outfits of commedia dell'arte ...
But Alli, you are hardly "stupid" ... :)
Daria's grades would have a significant effect on her ability to get into a good college. Especially given her lack of "extracurricular activity" (bureaucratese for "sucking up to the establishment").
On 25 Apr 1999 09:46:13 GMT, [email] (JBassior) wrote:
Also, in animation, unlike live-action, you have to make sure that the characters are identifiable. In live action, you can usually rely on the distinctiveness of the actors' faces to keep who is who straight; but in animation, where the images are stylized and there are facial features not explicitly put there by the artists, you need other visual cues to get the idea across.
This is also why, in anime series set in Japan, you will often see characters that have blond, red, blue or even green hair; its not that the character actually *has* hair that color (though some may, depending on the series; i.e., Lum in Urusei Yatsura), but that they need to add the extra visual cue to keep the characters unique. In the US-based animation (regardless of where its actually animated), faces tend on the whole to be less stylized, and are the main differentiation between characters, but clothing still is used as an identifying device for when the face isn't fully visible.
I know I'm gonna catch hell for this, so I'd better get my Nomex overcoat on...
That's a good point: I wouldn't have any problem telling the members of the Fashion Club apart without their clothes (or maybe I should say, with different clothes), but then again I've been following the series a long time.
It seems to me that they know very well that Daria is Quinn's sister. Certainly Sandi does; she's met Helen, obviously, and if nothing else Linda would have told her (after pumping Sandi for dirt on the Morgendorffers). It seems like a running joke with them - oh, yeah, she your cousin Quinn, we *believe* you despite all of the evidence to the contrary. It is entirely in character for at least Sandi and Tiffany to go laughing at Quinn behind her back, Sandi out of malice, Tiffany to kiss up to Sandi. As for Staci... well, she obviously will do *anything* to be accepted, even to the point of trying to copy everything about Quinn when alone with her (in "Gifted"; Quinn was so scared by this that she left Staci's house, after she puts on clothes identical to Quinn's and begins copying her mannerisms). She'd laugh along too, but only if she was certain that it wouldn't get back to Quinn.
IMHO, Staci is among the more disturbing characters in the series, if only because she is a bit *too* believable and human. She has the potential for a total meltdown, possibly a violent one. Her intelligence is literally unimportant; as Austin Covello points out in "A Day in the Life of Staci" (http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/4148/stories/A_Day_In_The_Life_Of_Stacy.html), she could conceivably be as intelligent as Daria or even Ted, but it would never show though because her desperate need to fit in forbids her from being known as a 'brain'. (No, its not likely, but still waters do run deep).
I think she's more likely to hurt herself than others. I'd call her a major suicide risk.
Hmm ... the InvisigothGypsy portrays Stacy as being smarter than she seems, in her "Disneyworld" story. I could easily see this, intelligence and self-confidence (or sanity) don't always go hand-in-hand.
Mostly as an economy. If the artists had to come up with new outfits for each Fashion Club member for each episode, or each day depicted in each episode, then there would have to be even fewer Daria episodes. Just engage your "suspension of disbelief" mode and don't worry about it.
Generally, Daria supports intellectual pursuits of all sorts, values people of intelligence and disdains the stupid, the deliberately ignorant, and dishonesty of any kind.
I've been curious about that myself. I've been watching the old B&B reruns on MTV for more information. So far I've seen no sign of her family. I even wondered if she carried the name "Morgendorffer" while on B&B but now I've discovered that she did. Her personality seemed substantially the same but some of her traits have been enhanced in the show "Daria." In B&B Daria was smart, but then EVERYONE seemed smart compared to Beavis & Butt-head. In "Daria" they've made her even more of an intellectual and they've expanded on the "outcast" trait. In B&B she seemed hardly an outcast at all, though the issue didn't seem to be completely explored. In "Daria" the issue is quite explicit. I still haven't seen ALL the B&B episodes so there's a great deal more that I might be unaware of.
Daria seems to appeal to a more sophisticated fandom than most shows with the typical fan seeming to exhibit much greater intelligence, erudition, and perspicacity than fans of most other shows. (Which of course begs the question of, "what the hell am >I< doing here." <G>) For whatever reason, Star Trek also seems to have such an appeal. It's only natural that such special people would have a greater urge to create.
Aside from the writers not wanting to wreck a useful running joke, I'd attribute it to acquiescence on the part of the Fashion Club. If you'll notice, the Fashion Club is the only group that seems either unaware of Daria's relationship to Quinn or is simply willing to play along for Quinn's benefit. Otherwise, everyone else seems well aware of the familial connection. Quinn's admirers were explicitly informed of the relationship in "The Invitiation," when Daria attempted to embarass Quinn by telling the boys, "Hi, I'm Quinn's brainy sister. People say we look alike." and they indicated they understood when they told Quinn, "I don't care if your sister IS a brain...". So when the boys needed help in getting Quinn to "get her priorities straight" in "Quinn the Brain" the boys went to Quinn's sister, Daria. They knew who she was all right. I thought one of the cutest lines in that ep came when the boys arrived at the door and told Jake, "We're here to see Daria...You know, your OTHER daughter."
Wow! Gee, I wonder why no one has ever thought to discuss the Trent/Daria relationship before? Why not review the question in Dejanews or whatever first? If there are any points that have been overlooked feel free to introduce them. Of course the writers seem to be intentionally leaving this question open for now so our opinions will have to be only speculation.
If Daria has any ambitions, she doesn't betray them in any episodes I've seen. In fact it seems to be a character trait that Daria has no plans at all, aside from not waking up at 40 with the realization that she's in a job she hates because she was forced to choose a career in her teens. She's considering not going to college--saving the trouble of moving back home later.
Daria is smart, but she's also human, which means that she may very well act stupidly from time to time. I think it's very useful for the show to point this out, that intelligent people aren't machines, they make mistakes. In fact I've noted that to really screw things up spectacularly takes intelligence. Making mistakes is part of the learning process, and, of course, learning is one of the things that intelligent people enjoy most. Daria has spent a lot of time in her books but in the area of interpersonal relationships she's still quite ignorant. I think it's good that she's finally learning her lessons on this subject.
The nature of this kind sub-cultural jargon being what it is, if teens actually ever did talk like that then now that the secret has been revealed they'll have to change it to something new. It's a little like changing your user password periodically. I have to wonder though. Back when I was a teen I'd read newspaper articles about the then-current teen jargon and would be as mystified by it as everyone else. I certainly didn't talk like that, though some did, but then I was something of an outcast, like Daria.
Again, based on my personal experience from long ago, I'd say yes they do, to a certain extent. And they always have--and probably always will. That's why "Daria" is so good, so classic, so timeless. It's not just another teen- show about high-school, it's a thoughtful exploration of how human beings behave. To that extent I think Daria belongs in the category of "great literature."
Her family was never seen, and was only mentioned once, when Daria was talking about being on the Highland High school paper ("My parents made me join the school paper"). Helen, Jake, and Quinn came into being when Glenn and Susie decided to spin Daria off into her own series.
Martin (to send E-mail, remove the "nospam" from my E-mail address) ---- Quinn: "When they got nervous, they'd drink cocoa." Helen: "Now, sweetie, there's nothing to worry about." (door slams) "Looters!" ---- Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria! http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/
I agree. Their clothes are an exaggeratedly "precious" version of teen fashion. They ARE "cute" .. in the worst sense of the word.
Heh, especially for a diabetic with high blood pressure!
I would *love* to see what the Lawndalers made of B&B ... it would just be *so* hilarious ...
Some of the characters on Daria *are* getting laid. Kevin and Brittany, to take the most obvious example. Jodie and Mack are going steady but not "all the way".
Daria we know isn't at all sexually active. Jane seems to fool around occasionally.
The Fashion Clubbers seem more interested in trophy dating than getting serious with anyone. We don't know the details of any of their love lives, except for Quinn, who's a classic "tease" ... i.e. she dates a lot but doesn't let her dates get anywhere with her.
We assume there's smoking going on, it doesn't get shown because of the neo-Puritanism about tobacco these days. For that matter, Daria once mentions "drug dealers" but there's no actual drug use shown, either. (Then again, drug use is becoming increasingly unpopular among teens IRL, one of the few good developments in recent popular culture).
Cussing ... that's the *major* departure of the show from reality, but I understand why and accept the dramatic convention.
As for "kiling their classmates" ... it's not all that common, despite the recent tragedy in Colorado. Especially not in a neighborhood like Lawndale.
I got the impression that the neighborhood in question (Littleton, was it?) was an upper-class, predominantly white neighborhood, which sounds like Lawndale to me. I think the Daria writers might even be tempted to address the issue somehow if not for the fact that it would be a lot more serious than we've come to expect, and they've already done a death-at-high-school episode. **************************************** "Awww, poor baby. You want some cheese for that whine?" "You want some corn for that pun?"
White, but middle-class. And it was a freak occurrence. Serious school violence (assault with intent to kill) is generally a problem of the underclass in America, not the middle and upper classes.
To atone for this deadly sin, you must drink a Brainwash and then attend exams.
What is all this ripping on Mountain Dew? My middle-aged *father* drinks it! I drink it once in a while, it does nothing for me except keep me awake those nights when I've got something of vital importance to do. Do you guys want me to start ripping on coffee now?! ARRGH!!
-Mindy Who BTW is NOT drinking Mountain Dew right now
Ah, yes, Mountain Dew... it took me two of those just to keep me from passing out during Sales and Secured Transaction in Law School, and it was only a 50-minute class, too. *shudder*
Of course, I gave up caffeine about 2-1/2 years ago-- made me too jittery. Know what? I don't even miss it anymore. (It never really helped me wake up, anyway, and I hated those weekend headaches. Ick.)
Caffeine-free, but I still like a tall mocha frap decaf now and then... I know, Starbucks is evil, but those things are so *good...*, rich,
And realistic, too, as it pertains to the type of people the Fashion Club represent. What the club wore was oftentimes what a lot of my classmates wore during non-uniform days at school. One of the drawbacks of living in the '90s IMO...I'd rather look '80s, thankyouveddymuch, or of no particular decade at all.
Oh god yes. Reminds me of a dessert I saw Emeril Legasse preparing last night. Diabetic coma city! (But it looked so good....)
*so*
Wasn't there a piece of fan fic that dealt with a scenario with B&B and the folks of Lawndale? I KNOW I've read something along those lines before....
the
(snipped other commentary)
There is a movement in the US going that's getting some youngsters to at least promise to be abstinent until they get married. It's called "True Love Waits". And it's perhaps one of the rare occasions where I agree with the "Christian Conservatives", for I think it's far better to wait and not waste your sexuality. Of course it's only IMHO....
drug
Yeah, with all the anti-drug messages people my age & younger have received since we were VERY young (who remembers the Nancy Reagan talks with children, where she gets them to "just say no!"? I do) and with all our favorite rock stars succumbing to a life devoided by drugs (some famous examples given are Kurt Cobain and Andrew Wood of Mother Love Bone, but also include Shannon Hoon, Jonathan Melovoin (sp?) (Smashing Pumpkins keyboardist & brother of a former Revolution band member whose name I've forgotten), Brad Nowell of Sublime, and we're only going into the '90s musicians who passed away), we've gotten away from the image of drugs being glamourous.
Yes, because it would never get past the MTV censors if it showed cursing. Maybe if "Daria" were to venture onto HBO, where EVERYTHING gets by (I don't think they even have censors)....
Yeah. It's not like it's an inner city. I don't think someone like Kevin would survive an inner city school, anyways.
Well, YOU try dealing with a throng of people dead-set on doing something they were EXPLICITY told NOT to do by a police officer no less, and still come with intellect intact.
I'll try to get your joke later on. Promise.
deena lissa whoever sang "I love a parade" must be joking
There've been a few, ranging from funny to awful. The thing you have to remember writing B&B is that while they *are* malicious, they not truly evil, just very, very dim. And easily distracted by anything shiny.
I agree with the movement. Even if many people are not able to resist the temptation in the end, at least it increases the likelihood that they will at least be making love with people they truly care for, as opposed to just having sex in order to conform to somebody else's expectations. And, contrary to Freudian stereotypes, early sexuality is not generally either a physically or a psychologically good thing.
Some people made fun of "just say no" as naive, but actually it's good advice. If you avoid getting into the habit of using drugs to begin with, you're less likely to abuse them in the end.
Of the characters in the series, we know for sure that Daria doesn't do drugs.. Jane I could see experimenting or using them at parties, but not under Daria's critical gaze. Trent I could see smoking pot, but not habitually using anything harder.
We KNOW that Jake and Helen did drugs when they were younger (thus Jake's paranoia on the subject; Helen knows Daria better).
If Quinn did drugs it would be solely to be "popular", so it would depend on the rest of the Fashion Club.
I could see Sandi encouraging drug use, but only if she was the one who got to pass the stash out. Staci would go along with anything Sandi would. Tiffany doesn't HAVE a mind to waste.
Jodie and Mack, no. Kevin and Brittany, I could easily see smoking pot, but who would be able to tell the difference between them on pot and them being natural airheads anyway.
The lack of cursing doesn't bother me; most cursing is just verbal static anyway, and interferes with tight dialogue. When I write stories and I want to show that a character likes to curse, I'll have him speak a few profanities for effect in one line and then sprinkle his dialogue with it at appropriate points; otherwise I just avoid them save when necessary for emphasis or humor.
ROFL ... it's a funny thing to consider. Kevin in the South Bronx ...
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:31:30 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from deena lissa , and it said:
Well, as far as fics that include B&B go, there's "Good Bye Diarreah," by C.E. Forman, and "Daria in Wonderland", by Barrey Adelman (another of my favorite fic authors). Then there's the "Attack of the 50-foot Butt", by Bobby Birks (which crosses over _way_ to many different genres for my taste: Daria, Giant Monster Movies, X-Files...). I don't think any of these involves both B&B and any of the lawndale crew besides Daria...
Wait! There's also "As Luck May Have It", by Nessey Thompson (arguably my favorite, and, IMO, the most realistically done fic in the "Romance" section at Outpost Daria). That included Beavis and Butthead, and Jane got to interact with them. I think she'd knocked them unconcious before either Jesse or Treant got to meet them. Just so I can plug this one, while I normally didn't like the "shipper" fics (how did that term come about, anyway?), I really enjoyed this one. I think I'll read it again, after I'm done reading and posting. :)
I was of the understanding that "shipper" was short for "relationshipper", which was apparently started by the XFiles fans who are dying to see Mulder and Scully get it on.
But, I could be mistaken, and you could be entirely correct.
Thanks for the plot synopses! Now I know which one it was..."As Luck May Have It". I remember that one now, completely. One of my favorite stories PERIOD, regardless of genre, because of its pure entertainment value.
I agree that it's not all that common, just that people think of it more than other tragedies because of the media attention. It's like the fact that they report plane crashes when more people die in car accidents, but people still think planes are dangerous.
The city in Colorado wasn't exactly "inner city" either, it was a very upper-middle-class city. Even the geeks had expensive clothes.
Dagny misery chick, cynic
http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697
"Did you ever get the feeling That the truth is less revealing Then a downright lie? And did you think your head is hip To certain things it's not equipped to qualify?" Neil Innes
Exactly. The unusual accident arouses more fear because it is unusual. We accept car crashes and slum murders as part of the hazards of life ... a plane crash or a shooting in an upscale neighborhood are what shock us. It's easy to wrongly generalize from this that planes are more dangerous than cars or that rich neighborhoods are more dangerous than poor ones.
A couple of days ago, according to reports, a passenger on a BA flight found the crash alarm in the stewards' area. He or she lifted the flap, pressed the button, and everyone heard the announcement telling them to prepare for a forced landing: put on lifejackets NOW and adopt the brace position at once. Allegedly.
In principle, it's not much different to someone in a bus shouting "We're going to crash!" But I suppose the BA incident was reported because nearly 400 people were involved. ISTM it's the scale of the plane incidents (as well as their unusualness) that make them newsworthy, while the slow attrition of car accidents won't make the headlines.
Good point. The massacre at Columbine High was also exceptional in scale, even though if we were to approach these things on a yearly basis we would find a steady drizzle of murders in and around slum schools, and virtually none around the upscale ones.
Large rare events attract more attention than small common events, even if the small common events add up to a far larger scale. Everyone knows about Chernobyl and the 500 or so fatalities; most people neither know nor care about the steady stream of fatalities resulting from the waste products of fossil fuel power systems, even though it's probably greater by several orders of magnitude.
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:54:46 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Martin Sylvester" , and it said:
I think that a good idea, journalistically speaking, would be for the editor, whenever they print an airplane crash article, to include a small "stat box" listing the number of signifigant injuries and fatalities resulting from automobile accidents since the last airline crash, next to the number from the present crash. It'd probably be a pretty sobering number.
a) The Fashion Club is full of it, and have no imagination, and (more importantly)
b) The way animation works, it's a LOT cheaper not to change the clothes characters are wearing (so that you can re-use the same sequences of characters walking, etc.). We see Daria wearing different clothes from time to time, when it's relevant to the plot (i.e. "Road Worriers") but the Fashion Club characters are mostly rather secondary. (Though we do see them in rather ugly bathing suits in "Daria Dance Party").
She's a book lover. She reads a lot, and reads a lot of "serious literature". Book burning horrifies her like it would any bibliophile (like me!)
Yes, well, a lot of ethical people believe the former, and cynics the latter. I personally think boycotts don't work, but then again I'm a lot more cynical than Daria about certain things ...
Then again, I'm twice Daria's age. When I was 17, I was much less cynical than Daria in some ways (though less innocent in others). I think I trusted political leaders more than she does, though I don't any more.
She cares about her own integrity, and feels that if she's going to do a job, she has to do it well. She doesn't make a big production out of it, but it's obvious that she puts more effort into her work than most of her classmates. Plus, she's a lot smarter ... Daria's clearly genius to supergenius level in terms of raw IQ.
Heh-heh-heh ... you think the advertisers could buy a clue ...
Daria's family was never shown, as far as I can recall. Daria was a lot more subdued ... then again she was around 14-15 back then, and didn't have any real friends.
The fans care about Daria. She's like a real person to them, and someone whom they like. We've all known someone who reminded us of her, or wished we did, or been like that ourselves.
Despite her veneer of cynicism, Daria is a very idealistic and (oddly enough) positive character, whose moral courage and refusal to compromise with what she disapproves of stand in sharp contrast to the "feel-good" and "go along to get along" mentality dominating most of popular culture. We wish her well ...
Quinn's pretense seems to work mostly with the Fashion Club, who are openly devoted to false surface impressions. I suspect that Stacy wasn't paying attention, Tiffany has the mental capacity of a flea, and Sandi ... heh, Sandi's just holding it over Quinn's head.
Yes. Though we're not sure how much or in what way. He definitely admires things about her, though ... he's said so, explicitly.
Probably. But who knows for sure ... Trent can be pretty oblivious.
I suspect that Trent does read, but doesn't go into the bookstores on Degas Street for some reason. But if he TRULY isn't a reader, this could be a major point of incompatibility.
We know she likes to write, and is fascinated by the oddities of the human condition. I could see her as a journalist or novelist.
I think that Daria's a very smart, brave girl. I also think that she's merely human, and to have her always be on top of the situation would turn her from a believable character into a plastic saint.
One of the things I like about the show is that it's realistic about the DOWN side of being alienated. In "Run Jane Run" she nearly loses her best friend because she foolishly makes fun of her (this due in part to jealousy).
In "Pierce Me" she doesn't so much act stupid as finds herself in a situation which is (to her) unusual and uncomfortable. She's overwhelmed by the unaccustomed feelings, both positive and negative.
Depends on the teens. *Daria* is a somewhat realistic show (more so than most "serious" teen dramas on TV), but it's a comedy, so it doesn't plumb the darkest depths of teen experience. On the other hand, this makes sense ... Daria (being who she is) wouldn't pay much positive attention to the worst elements in her school. Plus, she lives in a pretty upscale neighborhood.
As I said, I knew girls growing up that reminded me of (aspects) of Daria. And I know some today who do.
Because the folks at MTV Animation don't have billion-dollar animation budgets. :) In fact, Sandi's actually teased Quinn before about "that outfit you always wear." Which is strange, because we've only seen Sandi herself in two different outfits. (One in season 1, one in seasons 2-3.)
Well, exactly who's -FOR- book burning, after all?
Actually, both of these positions are nice, reasoned, middle-of-the-road ideas, designed to a) be generally regarded as correct and b) not pi$ people off.
Probably the same reason I did, and the same reason a lot of bright kids do well in school without really trying: High school ain't that hard if you're smart.
I know my personal favorites are the Trojan commercials. :)
Nope. Daria on "B&B" had no family that we knew about before her own show started.
Pretty much. Although, Daria on "B&B" was a photographer for the school paper, and also, moronically enough, the fashion reporter.
A tribute to the average intelligence of the fans of "Daria," I'd guess. As for me, I couldn't fiction my way out of a wet paper bag.* But yeah, I'd say the quality/crap ratio of "Daria" fan fiction is quite high. Mostly because I haven't tried it yet. :)
That, and Quinn's chosen "friends" are more likely to believe Quinn than "some brain."
Sure, Trent likes Daria. Compare his attitude towards Daria with his attitude towards Quinn in "Gifted." And "That was Then, This Is Dumb" gave us a clue that he was aware of Daria's crush on him. And he may not be an avid reader, but I'd bet that Daria might have some respect for him as an aspiring musician.
A lot more future-related fiction has her as a writer. In fact, in "Write Where It Hurts," she pictured -herself- as a newspaper columnist in ten years.
Thank you, Bill, for walking into my favorite Topic Of Discussion regarding Daria. For, you see, I know why you like to see Daria "acting smart," as you say. It's simply this: You see Daria as a surrogate for yourself. It's almost a universal fact among "Daria" fans that they would say that they are smarter than those around them, and that they are like Daria in that way. In fact, most people see themselves in Daria, and they project their thoughts and beliefs onto her. (Don't EVER do this, but it would prove my point: Ask the group here what they think Daria's views on some conroversial subject are. After the flames died down, you'd be left with what the respondents -themselves- thought about it.) The reasoning? "Daria's smart. I'm smart, too. We -must- think the same way about this."
No. And please, for the love of Val, don't say "Jiggy" again.
Arrrgh! :)
Really, though, "Daria" portrays HS as I remember it. People were capricious, cliquey, and snotty in HS. And now, well, at least I'm not in HS. :) I think that's the answer you'll get from a lot of people, of differing ages. (I graduated HS in '89, by the way.)
I'm 27, male, married, no kids as well. But my wife coaches HS freshmen girl's softball, so I at least get to see the species once in a while. :)
But some people burn books so there must be some people who like book burning else it wouldn't happen.
Yeah but you have to do some work else you don't get entered for the exams if you haven't done the coursework or do you not have coursework in the US? If you don't you're really lucky 'cos I hate coursework 'cos exams are easy and they only take about two hours and coursework takes ages and you have to do loads.
I think that, yeah, and also Quinn's friends aren't very bright mostly and they probably don't listen to brains very much either.
People at my school take a lot more drugs and fuck around and stuff, but not me LOL, just the pathetic ones. :) But they probably wouldn't show that on a cartoon of course, and it's not the sort of thing I particularly want to watch anyhow LOL. :)
I think it depends on the high school you go to. I know that over in my high school it was very easy to burn out after four years of being subjected to the rigors of classwork and homework -- and no one as far as I know just "floated by" without doing the actual assignments and doing well on the exams and such. Just one of my pet peeves that so many high school students (mainly public school, but I digress) just seemed to have had it so easy in high school and so they got these insanely high GPAs, and compare them to where I went to school, where in some classes you had to struggle just to get an 86 in something.
deena lissa which is why I advocate weighing GPAs and giving schools such as the one I attended a ten-point advantage just because of the enormous struggle we had to go through
(p.s.: Alli, even though I responded as such as I responded to the posts made about the whole US situation, that doesn't mean I was just picking on you. You just brought up some points that inspired me to respond then and there in such a way as I did. 'Kay? No harm meant.) -- "I don't believe in dragons or blues...." -- Duran Duran, "Khanada" (1981) Daria: I know what you mean, and that scares me.
Classwork and homework you can get away with not doing much of so long as you do enough to learn the stuff but you can't be entered for the exams if you don't hand in all the coursework except in Maths where there's an extra exam for people who didn't do any coursework but I did the coursework so I'm not being entered for that but I wish I was 'cos my coursework's really shit and I'm predicted an A* and I am NO WAY going to get that if my coursework doesn't get improved or something! :)
OIC. Thanks for explaining. Our system was a little different. We would have percentages of our grades devoted to what you got as far as homework/classwork was concerned. If you did all your homework/classwork at a high quality of work, you were given full credit on that side, and thus were given the full percentage for homework/classwork. Even though it seemed little in comparison to test grades and projects, our teachers would make sure we did our homework by both publicly embarrasing us if we didn't do it and by making sure the only way you passed the tests was if you both paid attention in class AND did all your classwork/homework. Was very good for my work ethic, in fact.
I hope you do get your A, though. I'm actually convinced you will.
A* :) and there is i repeat NO WAY i am going to get that, lol. :) And i'm a sample person in Art now, you know, so the examiner has to look at all the sample people's work and decide if the marking's right or not and that sucks 'cos that means i have to sort the layout out properly for everything and do all the writing in pen so it looks neat and stuff, but it's OK really but it has to be finished by two weeks time (!!!!) and i am going to have to work my arse off to get it done in time...
While I don't think there's many book burnings lately (I can't think of one off-hand), the Banned Books list is alive and well in America - and schools often *do* use it, ridiculous as it may sound....
<snip response which I agree with more or less>
I like those episodes personally - they show Daria with her defense mechanisms mostly down so we can see more than the "surface Daria" :)
Well, real teenagers tend to swear more - and of course the "in" words tend to change season by season and school district by school district depending on music, season, the whims of the student population as a whole, and the alignment of the stars...
Daria exagerates it more than slightly, especially in season 1 - season's 2 and 3 we've started to see more realistic facets to the characters you can shrug off as being idiots at first glance - with the notable exception of Kevin.
You should see the Duran Duran fan fiction out there (useful URL: http://users.erinet.com/3173/). A great deal of it involves sex. Some of those stories, in fact, are downright implausable as I know no one who could be that sexually interested (no, not even a ten-times more sexually charged Brittany would be able to compete).
I don't know as I'm 20 myself and already feeling out of touch with teenagers, but I do know that when I was a teenager I was pretty much the same as the way I am today, right down to my obsession with Duran Duran. I do think, though, that it's up to the person, the environs from which the person springs from, and the society in which that person lives. Also, timing is essential. I did wear a lot of flannel in '92 - '95, y'know...
deena lissa and it's perhaps the only fashion trend I've enjoyed 'cos those flannels are COMFORTABLE