Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    77d 4h 17m 31s

Tibarn last won the day on September 30 2016

Tibarn had the most liked content!


About Tibarn

  • Rank
    The Real Donald

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Cricket, Basketball, Video Games, Ecology, Sociobiology, Zoology

Recent Profile Visitors

8,350 profile views
  1. Tibarn

    KKR sign Warrier for injured Nagarkoti

    That's fine, just another Moral Victory for the Flaming Flamingos of Jaipur They were so scared, they banned us, again !!! If You Can't Beat Em, Ban Em
  2. Which book? If it doesn't actually address theory, then I expect it has actual quantitative data? If not, then what is the point of reading it if I am expected to accept more unsubstantiated observations by another random person? That is called observer bias. My point stands, observations by biased individuals don't constitute a basis of acceptance or discarding a political system. I doubt there is no compelling data which quantifies this. This is again observer bias. Shifting goalposts: my statement wasn't particular to this forum. I don't actually talk about "Europeans" on this forum, since those topics don't exist on this forum and it isn't interesting, so I doubt anyone would've seen me either praise or discredit them reflexively. On cursory glance through my post history, for the Big 3 European countries (England, France, Germany). I have mentioned France a grand total of once time my entire time posting here, and Germany twice. Out of 56 times England/UK has been mentioned 55 was in the context of Cricket. That is 4 times total for the 3 important ones. That ad hominem of supposed "reflexive bias" against Europeans is baseless and unsubstantiated. If the statement of fact that a country is developed counts, then this one praises a couple of them including Greece and Poland. Either way, I have no reason to discredit "Europe" or "European" countries on actual objective measures. The key-word being objective. I am not going to praise "Europe"/"Europeans" on subjective measures. Personal observer bias relates to an experimental group where people see what they want to see when studying a subject. I am neither studying you, nor your posts. Anything you post that I read is said directly to me. I neither gain anything from your being shown to be biased or nor do I lose anything if you are not shown to be biased. I also didn't preemptively level any accusations of bias against you for whatever motive. Frankly speaking, everyone has biases, accusing others of being biased while feigning neutrality is dishonest. Pot meet kettle. I am only doing what you did when you made the baseless allegation of a supposed reflexive bias against Europe that I have. The difference is, I am openly offering to show why I consider you biased pro-"Europeans"/other over-generalized term, however, I rather cut out the useless drama from the thread. Maybe, maybe not but I will use a derivative of your earlier statement: I am yet to see actually any instances of your claim of you criticizing any subset of Europeans/Europeans in any non-trivial way, but I have seen you make grandiose statements regarding either Europe, regions of Europe, or countries in Europe which were sometimes bordering on apologia/propaganda for them. Strawman, I never claimed that democracies ever waged war on any of those grounds. My statement was regarding the assumption on what is rash behavior. In this example, You are assuming that "wanting to shag someone" is rash, but Zoologically, this is a valid reason for war/combat, (especially since the rest of the ROPer barbarians would also get their chance to shag and wage Jihad). As is succession and resources. You will find them primitive barbarians, but they, if they successfully invade and conquer you, will call you all sorts of derogatory phrases(and that is the mild end of the spectrum of what they will do as you already know). In the current global political climate, a country would be condemned for going to war over, say control of a river, but that doesn't change that it was legitimate enough of a reason. That climate isn't necessarily a permanent fixture. I would say with the decline of the US and the rise of China, more such behavior would be legitimized. This I would only agree with on the Personal Wars part. I doubt there have been many personal wars by democracies in the current democratic era. I don't see anything compelling showing that democracies are any less destructive than dictatorships, the list of genocides, invasions, slaughtering, imperialism by democracies are abundant. I am not so sure. China has taken a number of steps which are impressive to me, which I don't think a single democratic country will take in the foreseeable future. False choice, there is no reason to assume that a non-democratic government would be sadistic, and there is no compelling, quantifiable evidence that most dictatorships/monarchies were sadistic. That is just an assumption which likely relies on confirmation bias. Even, if we accept that democracies do less harm, which isn't so, a paralyzed government isn't objectively good. A paralyzed government could only be considered good, when they need to avoid screwing things up when they are already good. This doesn't support the idea that a poor or lower income country should accept this form of government as they need the correct policies. Ergo it is illogical. Paralysis also hurts those who are disadvantaged by the status quo. It pretty clear that to me, that Europe and India are (expletive) by the current status quo in both regions/countries. To clarify this part since it seems to be veering in another direction (your posts in black). The point of this statement was that different people have different views about what is good for society. You were claiming that these "elites" were taking actions to screw the weak and the helpless. This isn't an objective truth, it is a Marxist reading of History/Sociology as one of class struggle ( It follows from Conflict theory of Sociology). That 90% number is, again, a made up statistic. There isn't anything compelling which suggests one should accept this reading of History/Sociology over Symbiotic-Interactionist or Functionalist theories. One could argue that literally any major decision will affect the poorest members of society. That isn't particular to a dictatorship. The big reform in the US in the 90s was NAFTA under Pres. Clinton, and the people most negatively affected by it was arguably the blue-collar working class. Similarly the "illegal immigration" issue affects the unskilled labor force, and AI will affect those target groups as well. Are we to assume maleficence for all these actions The definition of good for society must be subjective, unless one include parameters which are shown to be objectively good. Say you and your old nemesis @Green Monster (green mogambo) are arguing for what is better for society, and the topic of Feminism comes up. How exactly are you guys going to come to an agreement on what is "doing good for society" when you guys are so far apart on the two ends on this issue, that there isn't really a middle? In this scenario, there isn't really any hard experimental science which supports the stands on a philosophical/political issue like Feminism, one way or the other, therefore all that will be left would be seeing who has more people agreeing with their opinion or weaker forms of evidence. If we are going solely by my parameters, which again are subjective, a government must be judged by its ability to turn its country into a superpower(Economic + Military). Whichever form of government achieves that, is what is best. However, you would likely add ABC to that or subtract XYZ, while another person will add DEF and subtract VUW, etc etc... That is what makes it subjective. Bolded part: patriotism is only the: Thinking that a ruler has a dumb cause for a war doesn't really make the ruler unpatriotic, so long as he also has followers who think it is a patriotic duty to fight because his daughter is insulted. Patriotism doesn't necessarily depend on what some peasants think either. A country could effectively be a ruling class and a bunch of redundant interchangeable peasants who other times function as mercenaries. One could argue that most societies are anyway plutarchies, which should especially be true for democracies. The same general people always rise to the top of societies, there is in fact a book on this subject,( which I will plug the next time I come on this forum to respond to this post because I don't have the name off the top of my head right now). Most people agreeing on something doesn't make something objective, it just makes it popular. Also, this is again a Marxist reading of history. I don't view things in a different times different rules sense. The Athenian example was to note that small societies don't necessarily scale to large ones. There have been all kinds of smaller societies with different rules and practices which were ultimately subsumed by more dominant methods of organization. I think you said you are a techie nowadays, so maybe you will get this reference, but think of it like Big(O) analysis of algorithms. Bubble-sort is efficient for small data-sets, but as the scale or size goes up a more efficient sorting-algorithm will be needed for those larger sets. I don't deny that democracies are less prone to "honor warfare", I deny that it is objectively bad. Sure, but the whole discussion is based on assumptions on democracies which aren't really substantiated as being objectively good. The safeguards are if another higher up would stage a coup d-etat should someone actually crazy get power. It's not like there aren't endless examples of overthrown kings/queens or government collapses. There are even peasant revolts/revolutions. Not really, humans aren't a monolith. There are people who will never show an iota of altruism while there will be people who display suicidal levels of altruism. This will extend to the culture-wide level. There isn't a monolithic human nature which can be generalized to make such a blanket statement. The modern arguments for democracy, particularly Universal-Liberal democracy, are derived from the Enlightenment, which has roots in Christianity (although not exclusively, there is cultural fusion with Roman and Greek philosophy). Whatever our own literature says/doesn't say doesn't really affect the roots of many of the assumptions put-forth by the Enlightenment. It also doesn't have much effect overall as India's constitution and government is a copy-paste job of the American+ British governments. I don't find it convincing. Even if I accept all your arguments as true, war is still only single variable in a multi-factorial analysis of governments. Some of the same arguments you make regarding the positive aspects of policy paralysis don't bode so well in the economic sphere. Then there is Except I am not saying one is better than the other. I am I would accept whichever one helps reach the targeted end-goal. I have been almost exclusively arguing that most of the arguments for are just subjective statements. People who fall on the sword of democracy are actually suffering from anchoring bias: clinging to what is safe and known. The recency bias statement was more in terms of the sample size question. Pretty much every significant government in history has been some type of autocracy: Monarchy in particular in the past. Now we have the current metamorphosis of Single Party-rule and Dictatorships. The only significant "democracy" in pre-Enlightenment history is basically the Roman Republic. Otherwise all the democracies in the sample are too small to be relevant ie Athens, or are in their infant/toddler stages: like all the "3rd world" countries. The oldest active one was formed in 1776, and the first one to even remotely resemble a Universal Liberal Democracy came around ~1900. The story-book isn't even over, so one can't write a summary, especially when the character in question(democracy), has only just made their entrance. Not really. This is patently false. A Singaporean has been more free than an Indian for pretty much the entire post-Independence era. This is despite Singapore having a Single-Party system. Economic freedom is arguably the most important, impact aspect of freedom. Many businesses in India aren't even allowed to run 24 hours a day. Add to that the aspects of taxation, red-tape, etc. There have been so many instances of democracies directly interfering in people's day to day lives. There isn't really a leg to stand on here. Legislation is legislation, regardless of form of government. At least the argument that dictators have more potential to damage is sufficiently vague,( ie rooted in unsupported assumptions, subjective opinions, and lacking any significant sample set of pre-modern democracies to draw conclusions from), but there is nothing that suggests a democracy can't interfere with/affect a constituent as much as a dictatorship. That is the very basis of law itself, affecting and interfering with constituents. Aside from a law itself, there isn't really anything that can stop a democratically elected leader from directly interfering in people's lives. The power that a dictator or a president has derives from their monopoly on violence (police, military, intelligence) and whatever legal abilities they are given. The moment a law is replaced by a more favorable one supporting violence, then it suddenly becomes legal to do that violence. That's aside from the fact that plenty circumvent laws that are on the books. Will see you all ICFers in a couple of weeks to write any responses
  3. Except I have read pro-Democracy literature, along with the major Enlightenment philosophers from who actually seeded the key ideologies of "Classical Liberalism" including "Democracy" and they, like all philosophers, are only speculating and/or articulating their own biases. Some of their basic assumptions underlying the entire Enlightenment, which is where this love for democracy comes from, are demonstrably false. Some of it is steeped in Christian theological concepts. There is no reason for me to accept any philosophy simply because their flowery language gives people warm feelings. Literally every philosophy in the world appeals to certain people, and those particular people find it profound/true. I have a friend who thinks the Koran is the most beautiful piece of literature/philosophy she has ever read, and she is training to become a Pharmacist. I am supposed to accept this simply because she likes what it says and it convinced her, someone already predisposed towards it, even if she will not be able to quantitatively explain why it is so beautiful? That's not going to fly. Flowery rhetoric =/= a basis of accepting one system/ideology over another. Data and effectiveness is what matters, not rhetoric. This is bold is an ad hominem. There has never been an instance of me demeaning actual so-called "European" accomplishments. I praise "Europeans" for what they actually do/did objectively well and trash them for what they don't/didn't. I also am not someone who groups "Europeans" as a single group: I speak of countries in Europe. I understand that they are not a single entity which can be painted with a single brush. Asking for data/analysis over rhetoric and bold proclamations of amorphous "European exceptionalism" isn't bias, it is far closer to objectivity. More people should actually learn beyond a superficial level of what they did/do, to actually provide evidence/data/proof of what policies the "Europeans" actually used/did and what conditions actually led to their current status. It is far more accurate to say that you are far more reflexively biased in favor of Europeans without actually critically examining what they actually do and why they actually succeeded. I can give at least one example from memory as well. You are far more likely to actually refer to them/praise them as the nebulous mass of along the lines of "Europeans"/ something similar. Again, I can give an example. I can support my claims of your bias far better than you can claims of my alleged "bias". Again, this is empty rhetoric by those philosophers. There is no quantitative data which shows that a Democracy prevents rash actions any more than a Monarchy, a Republic, or a Dictatorship. I've seen Monarchists say that Monarchy prevents bad decisions, because the cost of failure in a Monarchy is the death of one's entire family if peasants revolt. That is similarly unsubstantiated. Even if one were to accept this basis of this theorizing, then it is also dependent on one's views what exactly is a rash decision and what isn't. The flip side of the coin would be accusations of: policy paralysis and government lethargy. The easiest example of this is the Climate Change, as well as other existential issues. How exactly is it good if a government can't act on existential issues? Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society. I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society." Without those parameters, it's just empty proclamations by various people of "what I say is better because I say so." Not agreeing with those reasons for war, but war is war. Everyone thinks their war is a war for a good cause or for a good reason. There isn't really a set, universal definition of what exactly is a good reason for war. Some people would say all war is wrong, except for self-defense. Some argue war itself is profitable. This is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, as the Greek city-states themselves were essentially so small that they hardly can be seen as some view on effective governance for societies many more times greater in size and scale. Athens herself was at one time a direct democracy, IIRC, which would be so difficult to implement in any even moderately sized country today. Communists also cite some random communes in (Arabia iirc) which were similar to their dream societies, where everyone worked without profit, despite the fact that a small Indian village governs more people than these communes. This is also fallacious as there is the fact that small societies can hardly war for the same reasons as a large society. Djibouti or North Korea, if they were to wage a war against some other country, would have to be more selective on both for what reason to go to war and who to go to war with. The US and China in comparison could wage war for a far greater range of reasons and against a greater range of opponents. All around, the Greek city-states are a non-descriptive example of human societies. I disagree, this seems more like an assumption of Original Sin, rather than anything which has a basis. Humans have different priorities and self-interests. Again, that's an vague, unsupported hypothesis. First one has to set the parameters: What aspects of Humans are positive/negative? That definition itself will come with biases. Then how does Democracy actually neuter both the positives and negatives of it? Once again this relies on what is the definition of maniac/rational, as well as what is "good for society". I'm sure what you think is good for society wouldn't necessarily be congruent with what many other people think is good for society. This is also a case of recency bias: most large governments throughout history were essentially dictatorships, if one equates dictatorship to monarchy. When the base is larger, it's easier pick more examples from it. It's also a bias in history to look for "exceptional characters." No one reads about some unexceptional 8th century king of some Bantu tribe. The "Era of Democracy" is the current era, and even Universal Democracy is hardly ~100 years old. There has been numerous leaders/governments in this era who have shown plenty of "irrational"/violent policies with similar/worse human costs.
  4. Tibarn

    2019 Lok Sabha elections thread

    Your Future MPs Seem to be SM stars already
  5. Tibarn

    KKR sign Warrier for injured Nagarkoti

    Who cares?... Just hand the Cup Wooden Spoon to the Royals and be done with it! 2019 IS OUR YEAR!!!
  6. Tibarn

    3 for 48 and 46 of 54

    He is actually having the best season of his career right now this year, but last year was his worst. year 2012 1 1 9.0 3 27 2 2/27 13.50 3.00 27.0 0 0 year 2013 25 25 203.0 25 948 28 4/8 33.85 4.66 43.5 1 0 year 2014 16 16 137.2 10 635 14 2/14 45.35 4.62 58.8 0 0 year 2015 13 13 103.3 6 577 16 4/33 36.06 5.57 38.8 1 0 year 2016 2 2 17.0 0 111 0 - - 6.52 - 0 0 year 2017 24 23 187.5 11 949 28 5/42 33.89 5.05 40.2 0 1 year 2018 14 14 101.0 6 537 11 3/15 48.81 5.31 55.0 0 0 year 2019 10 10 81.1 4 425 19 4/45 22.36 5.23 25.6 1 0
  7. My opinion on derailed topics of the thread On topic: China has no reason to label Azhar as a terrorist. He and Bakistan are assets for them. The US and whatever other countries people want to support India's stand, can't do anything. The UN is now and has always been a farcical organization. Although I agree with @SinghBling, India should show some spine and do something, even if they don't want to go that far. Suspend any monetary and military contribution we give to the UN. We are paying in Rupees and Blood to basically serve an organization where 5 countries have some undeserved final say on any key action. A big boost for Make in India would be duties or even banning Chinese products, so long as we take advantage of it. We can't really use Uighurs, I don't think, as the Chinese will turn them into Dog food and then eat them at the Yulin Dog Festival
  8. I am not talking to the other guy, so why are you bothered? He is on his missionary agenda to "convert" Hindus to Atheism, I hardly care! He is free to his opinion on whatever he wants to have an opinion on. It is all wasted efforts by him IMO. I was only exposing his hypocrisy and bigotry in slurring Hindus! I will carry on, if it bothers you don't read!
  9. Depends on where people think he should bat. He was never going to be in the top 3, until after WC2019, so the problem was finding where in the lineup he belonged. Unfortunately, none of the batsmen tried really picked themselves or seized what chances they got: DK, Rahul, Jadhav, Pant, Rayudu, Yuvraj. All were either young, old, or flawed, and preparations for the WC didn't really happen until sometime after the CT. Making things worse, all our top 3 are so good, they would win most matches themselves, with little exposure for anyone lower in the totem pole. Add to that Dhoni having a guaranteed spot in the side, and there were too few spaces/opportunities to try out new players. WC preparations have all together been a huge mess.
  10. Tibarn

    I accept Dhoni as the Lord and Savior

    Jaahils, accept Dhoni as the true Lord and drop your Pant!
  11. Shamelessness!!!. Addressing his attempts to slur me Attempts to slur Hindus in general Addressing the next desperate attempt : Next time I will post direct evidence that it was Islamic bigotry and imperialism which was the root cause of the whole beef-issue in the subcontinent!
  12. Tibarn

    US elite college entrance exam scandal

    US Universities have many factors which affect their admissions which call into question the concept of merit: There are alumni admissions and donation-admissions, the later where wealthy/influential people get into elite universities by contributing to the university's endowment. Some public universities have even larger endowments than private universities( ie University of Texas has one of the largest endowments in the country). There is the "Athlete bump", students who are athletes, even is bakwas sports that nobody watches like lacrosse get a boost in their admissions chances if the school is considering them for collegiate sports. Then one gets to the social-engineering categories: There are also "diversity admissions" where some people get judged more equal than others and get special consideration for admission into the university. I'd imagine a lot of famous people can get in via this channel as well. And finally there is the "under-represented minority" category where students over a standard deviation below a typical student at the university get admitted, despite not meeting the expected performance level, because they are "under-represented." The only people who seem to judged on merit are Whites and Asians. All that calls into question how difficult and how prestigious those degrees should actually count as.

Guest, sign in to access all features.