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-
ture na sig
Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't
Written by: quiet
Sorry mate, but liberty and tolerance just is better than repression.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?"
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
ture na sig
Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't
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.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Getting to the other side
ture na sig
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?]
"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!"
Written by: quiet
one criticism:
quote [dom]: 'Please open your eyes to how ridiculous you sound!'
ears, Dom, ears . . .
Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear--not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
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.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
ture na sig
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Getting to the other side
Using the keywords [shock u * thing] we found the following existing topics.