• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > I am in shock That the U.S. would help in such a thing.

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
_VT_
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

Your Face!
Location: el paso, tx

Total posts: 1173
Posted:http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/nfo/article.cfm?id=4673


If the U.S. wants to send me over there to help with this crap I'm going to have to contientiously object to it.


Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
-Albert Einstein-

Peanut butter... It fills the cracks of the soul! -Paul Blart-

Delete Topic

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:Sethis:

quote: 'America has no business interfering with the *internal* affairs of other countries. No country should be able to interfere like that. What it amounts to is America saying "Our way of life is superior to yours. Accept it, or we will invade. You have to live by our standards."

Rubbish. All you're doing there is giving justification to any terrorist who feels like making a point because if YOU say "Our way of life is better" then HE is entitled to say the same. How do you know that (for example) an Islamic Superstate would be so bad?'

Sorry mate, but liberty and tolerance just is better than repression. In these respects, at least, the American way of life is better. I'm not claiming that *this* justifies invasion.

But nor is it true that invasion is never justified. If a country is engaged in genocide, or oppression of a significant minority, then intervention might be required.

And why do you think that 'internal' affairs should be protected, anyway? Why is that sort of thing unacceptable if it's external, but protected if it's internal? Seems like a pretty spurious division, if you ask me.

How do I know that an Islamic Superstate would be so bad? Well, it depends on what kind of Islamic Superstate you had in mind. But the kind of Islamic Superstate which the Afghanistani Taliban would like to impose is way out of order. There's no excuse for that degree of stupidity. Women should be able to vote, and be educated; if you're gay, you shouldn't be executed as a result. Adulterers shouldn't be stoned to death, etc, etc. This should be self-evident. Oh, and bear in mind that women make up about 50% of the population. That's a fairly significant minority.

Furthermore, re:

'If you can't universalise something, it shouldn't exist. And DEFINATELY should not be held up as the ideal.'

Sethis, why on earth do you make such claims? I'm assuming that you mean 'if everyone can't be/have X, then no-one should.' Your claim is pretty vague, but I'm doing my best. But let's assume you're right. In which case:

1. We can't all be in charge, so nobody should be in charge.
2. We can't cure everyone who has cancer, so we shouldn't cure anyone who has cancer.

I'll stop there. Do you see what I'm getting at?

In fact, you moved too quickly in your post. You were attacking the 'premiss' that 'everyone deserves to have the opportunity to live [the American way of life]'. Your argument was that it'd be disastrous if everyone succeeded. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the opportunity: for instance, it'd be disastrous if everyone decided to take up watercolour painting full-time. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the opportunity.

Indeed, you haven't given any proof - or any hard evidence - that widespread adoption of the American dream would lead to disaster. But it's plausible enough, so I'll let it pass.

What I find curious is your claim that it [the American way of life] is unsustainable. Here's a piece of news for you: our way of life is unsustainable as well. In fact, Gulf economies which are dependent on oil are equally unsustainable, since oil is a limited resource. It's all unsustainable; it's just a matter of scale. Sooner or later, limited resources are going to run out, and we'll learn to live without them. Why should this be problematic?

And, lastly, I'm baffled as to your 'annoyance' about my 'claim' that 'the world should have coca-cola and republicanism'. HAVE YOU NOT EVER HEARD OF IRONY? Maybe I should start putting sarcasm-marks around comments like that one, I dunno.


ture na sig

Delete

Sporky


Sporky

addict
Location: Glasgow

Total posts: 663
Posted:In my view there are only two reasons where 'invasion' is necessary. They are:



1 - Mass genocide and

2 - Agression against the invading country



Which is why I supported Americas invasion of Afghanistan as they were allowing terrorist training camps to operate in their country and believe that American and other UN nations should act in the Darfour (sp?) region.



Sethis, you made the point about the amount of waste produced by American consumers. some of my American friends at university were confused by the idea of 'recycling'. They'd simply never heard of it whereas in the halls that I stayed in every room was given a waste paper bin and every kitchen had glass and plastic bins and in the garden there was a compost bin. That might be why there is a lot more waste in the states, a lack of recycling.



The American way of life is unsustainable as if we were to have every person on the planet move to secondary (manufacturing) and tertary (retail) jobs the infrastructure would collapse as there would be no raw materials to manufacture and sell. We need people do do the lower paid jobs and therefore a 'class' system will always exist be it within a nation or the nation its self it has to be there for the world economy to exist.



Quiet: You're gonna love it in St Andrews, the amount of sarky git comments that can be made in a few minutes towards some of the other people, especially Americans and some of the English yahs (posh folk), is phenominal.

EDITED_BY: onefinalstep (1124892385)


Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: quiet


Sorry mate, but liberty and tolerance just is better than repression.



But what you define as repression is not the same as what other people would call repressed. I might say I'm repressed because I couldn't study "Classical Civilisation" at my A-Levels. I might say I'm repressed because my mother makes me be home by 2am rolleyes . It all depends on your point of view.

Written by: quiet


And why do you think that 'internal' affairs should be protected, anyway? Why is that sort of thing unacceptable if it's external, but protected if it's internal? Seems like a pretty spurious division, if you ask me.





No, I think that the difference is that while you *can* use force if another government is being agressive vs another country (e.g. military occupation), you should *not* be able to prevent that government from being elected. You should simply force their military back inside their own borders, not destroy the system of governance and impose your own ideal.

Written by: quiet

How do I know that an Islamic Superstate would be so bad? Well, it depends on what kind of Islamic Superstate you had in mind. But the kind of Islamic Superstate which the Afghanistani Taliban would like to impose is way out of order. There's no excuse for that degree of stupidity. Women should be able to vote, and be educated; if you're gay, you shouldn't be executed as a result. Adulterers shouldn't be stoned to death, etc, etc. This should be self-evident. Oh, and bear in mind that women make up about 50% of the population. That's a fairly significant minority.





This is simply your opinion. Please don't get me wrong, I don't support any of the practices mentioned above, but I would not walk up to another culture and say "You're wrong" especially if the culture is centuries older than mine was. And I would not try to change it by force. I might put diplomatic pressure on the country (but not in the form of unilateral economic sanctions) though. Culture after culture has been destroyed because it was deemed inferior to someone else's, who happened to have a bigger military.

Written by: quiet


Furthermore, re:

'If you can't universalise something, it shouldn't exist. And DEFINATELY should not be held up as the ideal.'

Sethis, why on earth do you make such claims? I'm assuming that you mean 'if everyone can't be/have X, then no-one should.' Your claim is pretty vague, but I'm doing my best. But let's assume you're right. In which case:

1. We can't all be in charge, so nobody should be in charge.
2. We can't cure everyone who has cancer, so we shouldn't cure anyone who has cancer.

I'll stop there. Do you see what I'm getting at?

In fact, you moved too quickly in your post. You were attacking the 'premise' that 'everyone deserves to have the opportunity to live [the American way of life]'. Your argument was that it'd be disastrous if everyone succeeded. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the opportunity: for instance, it'd be disastrous if everyone decided to take up watercolour painting full-time. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the opportunity.

Indeed, you haven't given any proof - or any hard evidence - that widespread adoption of the American dream would lead to disaster. But it's plausible enough, so I'll let it pass.

What I find curious is your claim that it [the American way of life] is unsustainable. Here's a piece of news for you: our way of life is unsustainable as well. In fact, Gulf economies which are dependent on oil are equally unsustainable, since oil is a limited resource. It's all unsustainable; it's just a matter of scale. Sooner or later, limited resources are going to run out, and we'll learn to live without them. Why should this be problematic?





Sorry, I guess my sentence wasn't too clear. Are you familiar with Immanuel Kant's Deontological theory? One of the key points is if you can't apply something to everything, then it should not happen.

E.g. "Should I lie?" If you lied, then you are saying that everyone else can lie as well. This would eventually mean that the whole concept of "truth" would disappear and communication would break down.

That's a moral question. Here's an environmental one:

"Should we maintain a culture that is dependent on Impulse-driven consumerism?" If everyone said "Yes" to this question, then the world would have no natural resources left inside a century.

You can also apply this to what I said earlier about points of view:

"Should I claim that my culture is superior, and try to make every other culture in the world like mine?" If you say this, then you can only expect everyone else to say the same.

Written by: quiet


And, lastly, I'm baffled as to your 'annoyance' about my 'claim' that 'the world should have coca-cola and republicanism'. HAVE YOU NOT EVER HEARD OF IRONY? Maybe I should start putting sarcasm-marks around comments like that one, I dunno.



Sorry, but if you read the rules, then it is suggested that you put something like this: tongue after any non-serious comments. I apologise if I mis-interpreted that. The thing is, there *are* people who think like that. If you're not one of them then you have my sincere apologies for a tremendous insult wink


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Sethis

Yes. Because if you interfere then you entitle them to say "Hey, why don't we invade the Western countries who are destroying the environment?"




It has occurred to me that I wish that the EU would get off its arse and arm itself and threaten the US into stepping in line.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:Sethis:

1. If you think that it's ok for governments to use force to control their own citizens, then why don't you think it's ok for a government to use force to control citizens of another country?

2. Yes, I'm familiar with Kant's ethics. In fact, I'm writing my PhD thesis on Kantian ethics. And I think you've misunderstood it: for Kant, the problem with universalising a maxim of lying (for certain reasons) is that it'd generate a 'contradiction in the will'; that is, you're willing away the means, at the same time as you're willing the end, and that's a (practical) contradiction. But you can universalise the maxim of maintaining a consumerist society, even though it'll eventually run out of steam. And Kant also allows that people can have maxims of, for instance, working in Tesco's, even though if everyone worked in Tesco's then nobody would earn any money and Tesco's would go out of existence. Kant's ethics is a bit more subtle than you make out.

And sure, I grant you that if I say 'my culture is better', I might well expect everyone else to say the same. But the crucial difference is that I can give a well-thought-out, careful, reasoned, impartial justification for my claim (at least insofar as universal suffrage, tolerance, equality, etc. goes). Indeed, if you're so keen on Kant, you'll see that this is one of the attractions of Kant's theory; it shows why we should treat people as ends in themselves ('respect their humanity'), working up from a universal grounding - that of rationality. We can derive substantive ethics from formal claims, and these hold true for everyone.

Lastly, you've made the mistake of confusing what people say or think with what is actually going on. Here:

quote: 'But what you define as repression is not the same as what other people would call repressed.'

No, of course it isn't; but they are wrong. The BNP claims it isn't racist; but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong in thinking that they are. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, but he wasn't. Just because other people think differently doesn't mean that they're right, or indeed that it's all relative. Denying half the population (coincidentally, the 'weaker' half) the right to vote and be educated *is* repression.


ture na sig

Delete

Sporky


Sporky

addict
Location: Glasgow

Total posts: 663
Posted:To quote Eddie Izzard:

"...But now we've got this new thing, The European Union. 500 million people, 200 languages, no-ones got a clue what they're saying to each other. Its fantastically exciting in a really boring way. There's 15 countries in it and no one head so we have 15 countries all edging forward all saying 'whaddu think?', 'whadda you think?', 'can we decide something?'. Shall we have chicken takeaway, I dunno chinese takeaway, pot noodle..."

The EU can't even decide what to have for lunch (metaphorically speaking) let alone whether or not to become a world super power and with the UK government kissing the Americans backside its not going to happen for a long time unfortunately.


Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:note: quiet has just written a good post while I was writing my rant, so some of you might just want to read that instead and skip this one. This is turning into one of 'those' discussions, but hopefully nicely so.

Sethis, I don't meant to sound too aggressive here, but I think you're fundamentally wrong and I think maybe you're taking a rather simplistic and theoretical view of the way the world/humanity works, which is a mistake in itself. We're humans with emotions and as such theories based on logic, philosophy, maths, or anything else can only even be partially correct. It seems like you're working from a purely theoretical point of view where there is no right or wrong and humanity is all part of a mathematical equation. It simply isn't and to view global or local politics are you're trying to do is actually wrong and harmful.

Written by:
I would not walk up to another culture and say "You're wrong" especially if the culture is centuries older than mine was.


Why not? I think this kind of attitude leads nowhere constructive and just maintains a status quo that people have been rebelling against forever. People and societies need to continuously question their beliefs and actions and the age of a tradition, of a way of life should give it no extra credit. There are many, many examples where older cultures are so very obviously wrong and similarly the same goes for the new ones. I'm happy to tell other people why I think their religion, ideas, practices, culture is wrong and I'm lucky enough to have had quite a few people discuss this with me.

We do have to respect a cultures tradition and way of life and not be blind to it. But we need to do this in order to further understand the people and not make matters worse. For example it is a mistake for the UN to invade countries to enforce policy on them, but from what we know of a culture we can learn how to make an impact on a situation through political and humanitarian means and slowly bring about change.

Whether a country's policy effects are internal or external it's still our duty to look after fellow humans, whether for altruistic or selfish reasons. To stat with 'Internal' is a truly subjective term as countries are groups of regions, which are groups of different people's, which are.... etc.. Also no problem is truly 'internal' as an internal crisis or repressive government does effect us over time. Any internal repression or strife does have a direct knock on effect on at least the surrounding countries and possibly the global situation.

Now, indeed one person's repression is another's security, but we do have a majority consensus on a lot of these aspects of humanity. This is why the UN and other multi-country groupings were set up - to get a majority consensus on what was right and wrong and what should be done. Granted that by it's very nature this make the UN a rather bulky and toothless process, but it does an awful lot of good in countries round the world that we've never even heard of. There are currently 16 UN Peace keeping missions around the world helping keep countries stable from internal strife and I applaud the UN for it's work. Would you really rather leave these millions of people alone with only warlords and corrupt rulers to fight over their property and money.

Your examples of repression work towards destroying your credibility and I can think of several better examples to use. But I won't wink But serious repression is very, very real and to deny it is a crime against humanity. I've met people whose entire race and culture has been repressed, their houses burnt to the ground, their fields landmined, their sisters and mothers raped, their brothers forced into slavery and murdered once their usefulness has expired. You seriously want to tell these people, living in refugee camps without running water or electricity, that they not actually repressed, it's just a matter of opinion. Please open your eyes to how ridiculous you sound!

"You should simply force their military back inside their own borders, not destroy the system of governance and impose your own ideal."
The problem here is that you assume that by placing peace keeping troops inside another country means replacing the government with another of foreign choosing. Whilst this has happened a couple of times recently there are far more examples where this hasn't happened and the country has returned to it's own stable way of governance.

Kant's Deontological theory, again, sounds like a great idea, but purely something for theories or tiny communities. On a global scale and back in the real world this is not how it happens or could ever work. Any colony of animals has members that server different roles and receive different benefits. The problem with humanity is that the differentiation between all of us has become too much and needs to be adjusted to be ethically correct. No everyone can't have a SUV, 3 storey house and a Playstation. I don't have to feel guilty about owning an iPod because 6 billion people don't, but I can believe that all humans should be able to live without fear of violation of human rights, hunger, homelessness and violence.

Another point: saying that our way of life is better than another is not giving justification to any terrorist. For one that's jumping on a band wagon, and secondly it justifies somebody saying their idea is better, but not the means. Big difference. I can support the Palestinian fight for freedom and condemn attacks on civilian targets at the same time. One is justified, the other is not.

Right, rant over!


Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:One thing about the whole Gaza issue, if I may be forgiven to returning to the original topic, is that many older Jews believe that if we give an inch, we give a mile.

Now, this is no way to foster peace. After all, peace comes not through complete domination, but through compromise. I don't know what these people expect; that if we just keep slapping the Palestinians around they'll eventually fall into line and go along with it? Yeah...there's plenty of historical precedence for THAT approach working. Not.

Sharon (and I'm shocked that it's Sharon of all people), knows that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Woohoo for Dom... well said biggrin

hug


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:one criticism:

quote [dom]: 'Please open your eyes to how ridiculous you sound!'

ears, Dom, ears . . . smile


ture na sig

Delete

PsychoTronic


stranger
Location: Greece-Samos-Athens

Total posts: 80
Posted:Written by: quiet

'U.S should not be involved in anything that takes place between other countries.'

why not?

[the words 'pax romana' mean anything to anyone?]




Because it only does that to control the oil and the technology of other countries.Servia, Iraq,Afganistan,korea, etc.So many dead people.Every 2 years US is in war.Is US the judje??????? Who told US to play the judje.Why Greece and italy and portugal and holland and all the other countries are acting differenly? What problem does US have with children in iraq? US have the nose above the clouds... this will end someday where US will crush and be under the yellow giand and under europe.
If there are two people that have a fight you can get in the middle but you dont do that by killing one of them... UNderstood? US could get in the middle like every country but not taking sides. How do you say that iraq is wrong?that Afganistan is wrong, that korea is wrong? You cannot.No one can. Only fake reasons to achieve their goals thats what US do.US is for US and noone else.I am sorry you can see only what the propaganda gives you to see.Childish not to think beyond all these.


"For once there was an unknown land, full of strange flowers and subtle perfumes,
a land of which it is joy of all joys to dream, a land where all things are perfect and poisonous."
"Put out the torches! Hide the moon! Hide the stars!"



Delete

Sporky


Sporky

addict
Location: Glasgow

Total posts: 663
Posted:Written by: quiet

one criticism:

quote [dom]: 'Please open your eyes to how ridiculous you sound!'

ears, Dom, ears . . . smile



Ahem... :P


Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't

Delete

Superman
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Superman

member
Location: Houston, Texas

Total posts: 829
Posted:i say the world needs to plant more flowers..

Super'


Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear--not absence of fear.


- Mark Twain

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Hmm...

All that state killing in Iraq replaced with terrorists...why is it that people seem to think that's so much preferable? Afghanastan has become even more of a hell hole and heroin production there is stepping into high gear.

Yup, things are so much better after those last two wars. And where were those WMD that were meant to be the sole legal arguement for invading. Surely the government didn't lie?

Mabey there are times when war is justifiable. I've just never seen it.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Umm. Where to start? First, nice to hear some opinions politely stated, and well put.

So, Quiet:

1. Sovereignity? You know, like it's ok to shout at your own kids, but it's not ok if the neighbors do it? That kind of thing. I wouldn't appreciate someone coming into my house and telling me how to treat my family or pets or whatever.

2. Well, you're doing a PhD, and I only did it as one module in A-Level, so I'll assume you know it better than me. Basically, I think that his Universalisation applies because if the entire world took up impulse driven consumerism and capitalism then there would be no world left. So if it is held up as the ideal, then it makes no logical sense because you're saying "This will destroy the world, let's all do this". In fact, this makes sense if you leave Kant out of it entirely, because I'm sure you can see the logic there.

But surely you could make careful, rational and thought out reasons to back up some of the examples of a repressed society. An example is cutting off a thief's hand. Makes sense, because he is unlikely to repeat the offence. Admittedly it might be a bit harsh to do that for a first offence, but it could be argued as logical.

Also, the idea of what constitutes "fair" or "Justified" changes with time. In the slave trade it was considered perfectly fine to whip people. The vast majority didn't have a problem with this.

Maybe in 100 years time it'll be normal for people to think it's weird to have more than 1 child (to ease the overpopulation)? So it seems a bit unhealthy to force these ideals on someone when theyll be out of fashion in a century or so.

Dom:

"It simply isn't and to view global or local politics are you're trying to do is actually wrong and harmful."

I fail to see how objectively discussing these issues is harmful. And I'd thank you not to call me "Wrong" when this is *purely* an opinion and hypothetically based subject. As soon as I start hurting anyone with my opinions then feel free to call me wrong. I could believe in dragons, and not be wrong because it is an opinion that you cannot provide evidence either for or against.

Written by: Dom

Why not? I think this kind of attitude leads nowhere constructive and just maintains a status quo that people have been rebelling against forever.



No, because there is a difference between Rebellion and Invasion

Written by: Dom

I'm happy to tell other people why I think their religion, ideas, practices, culture is wrong and I'm lucky enough to have had quite a few people discuss this with me.



Sure, Im all for debate as well, but my point is that its perfectly fine to criticise something, but not to invade a country on the basis of a criticism that is purely a matter of opinion.

Written by: Dom

We do have to respect a cultures tradition and way of life and not be blind to it. But we need to do this in order to further understand the people and not make matters worse. For example it is a mistake for the UN to invade countries to enforce policy on them, but from what we know of a culture we can learn how to make an impact on a situation through political and humanitarian means and slowly bring about change.




Do you mean the US in the above quote, or the UN? When did the UN last invade a country with a military and set about changing the structure of their government? (If they did, then theyre wrong as well, for the same reasons) You can best respect a culture by leaving it the hell alone, and letting it develop naturally. How would you like it if aliens came down and forced us to have governments that followed their designs?

Written by: Dom

Whether a country's policy effects are internal or external it's still our duty to look after fellow humans, whether for altruistic or selfish reasons. To start with 'Internal' is a truly subjective term as countries are groups of regions, which are groups of different people's, which are.... etc. Also no problem is truly 'internal' as an internal crisis or repressive government does affect us over time. Any internal repression or strife does have a direct knock on effect on at least the surrounding countries and possibly the global situation.

Now, indeed one person's repression is another's security, but we do have a majority consensus on a lot of these aspects of humanity. This is why the UN and other multi-country groupings were set up - to get a majority consensus on what was right and wrong and what should be done. Granted that by it's very nature this make the UN a rather bulky and toothless process, but it does an awful lot of good in countries round the world that we've never even heard of. There are currently 16 UN Peace keeping missions around the world helping keep countries stable from internal strife and I applaud the UN for it's work. Would you really rather leave these millions of people alone with only warlords and corrupt rulers to fight over their property and money.

Your examples of repression work towards destroying your credibility and I can think of several better examples to use. But I won't wink But serious repression is very, very real and to deny it is a crime against humanity. I've met people whose entire race and culture has been repressed, their houses burnt to the ground, their fields landmined, their sisters and mothers raped, their brothers forced into slavery and murdered once their usefulness has expired. You seriously want to tell these people, living in refugee camps without running water or electricity, that they not actually repressed, it's just a matter of opinion. Please open your eyes to how ridiculous you sound!




Right, Id appreciate it if you didnt accuse me of crimes against humanity. Last I checked, it was not illegal to have private opinions that you express politely. I am not denying that bad things happen to people, and that there is repression in the world. I am simply pointing out that there are grades of repression. I might logically explain that people in the US are more repressed than people in some third world countries because the government is capable of monitoring every aspect of your life, from your emails to your shopping trips. *I* personally do not argue that this is worse than say, having to wear full body clothing (in the case of some Muslim women) but you can still make the point.

Written by: Dom

"You should simply force their military back inside their own borders, not destroy the system of governance and impose your own ideal."
The problem here is that you assume that by placing peace keeping troops inside another country means replacing the government with another of foreign choosing. Whilst this has happened a couple of times recently there are far more examples where this hasn't happened and the country has returned to it's own stable way of governance.




I said I disagreed with the destruction of a system of government and the invasion by foreign troops. Peace keeping is somewhat different.

Written by: Dom

Kant's Deontological theory, again, sounds like a great idea, but purely something for theories or tiny communities. On a global scale and back in the real world this is not how it happens or could ever work. Any colony of animals has members that server different roles and receive different benefits. The problem with humanity is that the differentiation between all of us has become too much and needs to be adjusted to be ethically correct. No everyone can't have a SUV, 3 storey house and a Playstation. I don't have to feel guilty about owning an iPod because 6 billion people don't, but I can believe that all humans should be able to live without fear of violation of human rights, hunger, homelessness and violence.




Ive already said that any kind of logic will work against Capitalism and consumerism. Not just Kant. So, would you say that its better to force-feed the world in a Capitalist fashion (and have the world die in a century), or to let other governments work out their own problems at their own speed?

Written by: Dom

Another point: saying that our way of life is better than another is not giving justification to any terrorist. For one that's jumping on a band wagon, and secondly it justifies somebody saying their idea is better, but not the means. Big difference. I can support the Palestinian fight for freedom and condemn attacks on civilian targets at the same time. One is justified, the other is not.




So then what about the Idea/Means of G.W. Bush wanting the entire world to be like him? Idea: Everyone lives in a democratic, capitalist society. Means: Invading other countries. You cant force an opinion on anyone by ANY means. I do not condone either terrorists or invasions.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:erm, if anyone's interested:



Fairly convincing justification of why israel is suddenly pulling out of Gaza & the West Bank



Most importantly:

Written by: Stephen Farrell, Middle East Correspondent of The Times (uk)
In the longer term [Sharon] also appears to have decided that the demographic timebomb of higher Palestinian birthrates will soon threaten Israel's status as both Jewish state and democracy unless it moves out of Gaza, where 8,000-9,000 Jewish settlers live among 1.3 million Palestinians.





A recent influx of immigrants made the demographic of Israel drop below 50% jewish. So, give up some areas where the jewish demographic is low, and he reinforces the demographic across the country, consolidating his power base.



i was all confused by the turnaround till i read that. Sharon's never seemed very interested in peace for peace's sake.





ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:hmm, while i'm here.
Written by: Sethis
I might logically explain that people in the US are more repressed than people in some third world countries because the government is capable of monitoring every aspect of your life, from your emails to your shopping trips.



what?

that's just...

i've met a lot of americans.
i've met a lot of asylum seekers fleeing third world dictatorships.
you are talking complete [censored].


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:Sethis:

quote: '1. Sovereignity? You know, like it's ok to shout at your own kids, but it's not ok if the neighbors do it? That kind of thing. I wouldn't appreciate someone coming into my house and telling me how to treat my family or pets or whatever.'

Sure - but if you're beating your wife up, abusing your pets, or threatening to kill your son if he turns out to be gay, then the state can justifiably intervene. And if your children are, say, setting fire to cars, then it's OK for your neighbours to shout at them. The point is, sovereignty is all well and good, but there are occasions when it's justifiably overridden. Oh, and merely saying 'I wouldn't like it myself' doesn't count as an argument or justification; it's simply an expression of attitude. You still haven't given any reason why 'internal' affairs deserve special protection, or ground non-interference.

2. re: universalisability. quote: 'So if it [the american way of life] is held up as the ideal, then it makes no logical sense because you're saying "This will destroy the world, let's all do this". In fact, this makes sense if you leave Kant out of it entirely, because I'm sure you can see the logic there.'

Well, a) there's nothing illogical about saying 'let's destroy the world' (although I agree it'd be perverse and immoral); and b) the difference between the American way of life and, say, the Iraqi way of life, is that the American way of life will lead to us running out of resources slightly quicker. It's not a case of 'destroy the world' v 'save the world', but rather a case of 'deplete resources quickly' vs 'deplete resources slowly'. And I don't see what's illogical about depleting resources quickly - by way of analogy, suppose I've got a packet of biscuits. I can eat them slowly, or all at once; either way, I'm going to run out of biscuits eventually. Now I don't see why the second option is any worse than the first (apart from the fact that it's imprudent, since I might get hungry later).

Third point: there are some things (like lying for convenience) which genuinely couldn't be universalised, and are immoral. But there are other things - like leaving work early in order to avoid the rush hour - which can't be universalised either. If everyone left work early to avoid the rush hour, then the rush hour would come earlier, and nobody would get what they wanted. However, it isn't immoral to leave work early in order to avoid the rush hour (let's suppose you're being paid by the hour . . . ). So your universalisability test, as you've described it, doesn't work.


ture na sig

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: quiet




Sure - but if you're beating your wife up, abusing your pets, or threatening to kill your son if he turns out to be gay, then the state can justifiably intervene. And if your children are, say, setting fire to cars, then it's OK for your neighbours to shout at them. The point is, sovereignty is all well and good, but there are occasions when it's justifiably overridden.





Sure, I agree. What I guess I'm saying is that you can't unilaterally judge when you deserve to have your kids taken off you. If I hit my kid once a month, once every 25 days, once every 20 days, once every 15 days... who decides when I should have my kid removed? And what is the basis for that judgement?





Written by: quiet


Oh, and merely saying 'I wouldn't like it myself' doesn't count as an argument or justification; it's simply an expression of attitude. You still haven't given any reason why 'internal' affairs deserve special protection, or ground non-interference.





That's not my argument, I'm saying that you can set fire to your lawn if you want, but not to the neighbors patch. Does that make sense? It's not about what *I* like, it's about what you can do in your own home.



Written by: quiet


Well, a) there's nothing illogical about saying 'let's destroy the world' (although I agree it'd be perverse and immoral); and b) the difference between the American way of life and, say, the Iraqi way of life, is that the American way of life will lead to us running out of resources slightly quicker. It's not a case of 'destroy the world' v 'save the world', but rather a case of 'deplete resources quickly' vs 'deplete resources slowly'. And I don't see what's illogical about depleting resources quickly - by way of analogy, suppose I've got a packet of biscuits. I can eat them slowly, or all at once; either way, I'm going to run out of biscuits eventually. Now I don't see why the second option is any worse than the first (apart from the fact that it's imprudent, since I might get hungry later).







But it's not your biscuits to eat. They belong to everybody. A slightly better solution would be to try and save the biscuits as long as you can until you can make your own (viz. renewable resources). And how the hell is destroying the world logical??????? What purpose is served???



Written by: quiet


Third point: there are some things (like lying for convenience) which genuinely couldn't be universalised, and are immoral. But there are other things - like leaving work early in order to avoid the rush hour - which can't be universalised either. If everyone left work early to avoid the rush hour, then the rush hour would come earlier, and nobody would get what they wanted. However, it isn't immoral to leave work early in order to avoid the rush hour (let's suppose you're being paid by the hour . . . ). So your universalisability test, as you've described it, doesn't work.





Again, if you leave early from work, the only person it affects is you (and maybe your boss), and provided the work gets done, there is no harm in that. So it's moral to leave early, you're the one who'll get shouted at. But if you make everyone else leave early, then everyone suffers (And so does the business).

EDITED_BY: Sethis (1124998797)


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Simian... succinct biggrin

Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Page: 12