Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Posted June 21, 2005 Hugo : I'm asking you. Why did you make a point you can't defend? If you seriously can't think of a satisfactory answer does that not suggest something about the viability of the original point? All those deeds i've mentioned to you in many posts are satisfactory to my liking and to many others on this board...I've explained to you that was my best answer...regardless of what it is it will not be good enough for you because in the excution of my job i may have to take a life....and yet you have repeatly said you would defend your family friends and properity because it fits your believes i just happen to believe that the morals and values of my country are worth defending ..."under our current goverment i don't nor do they have to ask you do you want to be defended" What business is it of yours? My answers will neither negate nor augment my arguments. Because it would give me more insite into why, and how you form your opinions...perhaps understand you better...or is it you feel more comfortable attacking me or my opinions because you know i'm a canadian soldier... Are you saying that these 30 million need to have a unified agenda forced on them by an all-powerful government? That's really the alternative, isn't it? Yes that is what i'm saying unless you can give me a sample of where your theory goverment is and how it is working.... But your words remain just a mindless repetition of your original contention. to quote you just noise to you, but words i live by every day... I'll tell you what I haven't done: killed any of them. Niether have i , and yet you have labeled soldiers wife beaters drunks, and people who cruise bars and pick fights....But you can sit in your chair like your the king and pass judgement on me and my profession but when asked what have you contributed you refuse....and i'm to take your opinion seriously...I've asked you serveral times to verify your grandfathers accounts and you have not leaving me to believe you have been BS me the entire time...again it is hard to take anything you say seriously...when others on this forum have not ...or your continously stealing BD's thoughts and quotes... you want to debate then fine ...but i won't get into a pissing contest because you don't like a reply or it's not the answer you were looking for...or slam my comments as noise... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Posted June 21, 2005 your continously stealing BD's thoughts and quotes... you want to debate then fine ... Let me be the first to say that my arguments have been more influenced by Hugo than the other way around. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Black dog: The rights and freedoms I am entitled to would not change, only the extent to which they are curbed by the state. To Curb or add additional rights and freedoms is done by the goverment....My piont is they are controlled by the state...issued or taken away...does actual ownership actually make a difference...more so when it is issued by an organization that has no means of enforcing those rights and freedoms but instead relies on the honour system that every nation "should" follow... The fact that people are denied their rights around the world (most often by governments) does not nullify the existence of those rights. They may be unable to exercise their rights and may be denied their freedoms, but they are still entitled to them. Would it also be a fact that those rights and freedoms are also protected by the goverments....And on the other hand what good is a law or decree if it can not be applied to everyone....without enforcement it really leaves the matter to our goverments to ensure we recieve atleast the basic rights does it not...What good is having something that you can not exericise without the permission of the goverment. How about asking yourself who gave you your rights to ask those questions...Soldiers gave you those rights Men and women that fought and risked thier lives to enusre our way of live remained as it is today....which, along with the above implication that individual rights only exist at the say-so of government seems to indicate that my rights and freedoms are the property of the state to advance or dispense with as it sees fit. If such is the case, what good are our freedoms? The beginnings of alot of states or nations have begun with conflict....whether to to separate from it's current goverment or Adminstrative control...or to throw someone off a piece of land they wish to inhabit....to do that the people form some form of goverment or controling agency first trying the political options but alot of the time it ends in armed conflict...it is these people that have stepped up to fight for what they want a new life, goverment, or thier rights and freedoms back that are responsiable for giving those rights and freedoms to future generations... Rights and freedoms are there to improve our way of life,to give us a better quality of life, to give us direction when creating new laws,or freedoms...they influence alot of our values and morals, and help define "us" those people that make up our nation....They are there to make the people happy, content ...happy people are more productive .. the right set of rights and freedoms also attracts new people into the country... What makes our government or (as you put it) "way of life" any more superiour than that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? If our main claim to fame is that we don't choose to abrogate citizen's rights with the same frequency (though the state reserves the right to do so), then ( as Hugo stated much earlier) our differences are simply a matter of degrees. the basic principle remains the same. Our form of goverment is suppose to act on what is best for the nation, or the collective...we enjoy alot more rights and freedoms than your examples, simply because it must keep our citizens happy or that goverment will perish....we have the option of electing those individuals into power, and if we are not happy then we change the goverment...we may not have much power as individuals but as a collective group we can and most often do persaude the goverment and it's chioces.... The Nazi's or Russia were acting on what was best for the few people in power...not the nation or collective...the people did not have a say or an opinion on anything...they controled the masses through fear and extreme control... we are on two separate paths..one is controled by the people another is controled by an individual. Basically, the soldier you see fighting for freedom today can just as easily be the one who marches you to the gulag tomorrow I would disagree to a piont, Good soldiers do not fight for the goverment they fight for a nation....The people....Hard to believe i know...they honestly believe in what they are doing and whom they are doing it for...it would be hard to convince a good soldier that the people are now the enemy, part of our training is not to be lead blindly....but to know what is right or wrong...and take the right course of action...(not to say there would not be other citizens to take thier place or that all soldiers honestly believe in what they are doing.. ) Herein lies the problem and the fundamental reason why humanitarian intervention is a dead end. What is the main reason to providing intervention in the first place ?, I guess it would be upto the recieving nation to decide if they could live with the trade off's in order to have aid reach thier people...meeting the objective of getting aid to thier people which i think is the main objective.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Black Dog Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 To Curb or add additional rights and freedoms is done by the goverment....My piont is they are controlled by the state...issued or taken away...does actual ownership actually make a difference...more so when it is issued by an organization that has no means of enforcing those rights and freedoms but instead relies on the honour system that every nation "should" follow... The UN declaration did not create the rights it contains anymore than the U.S Declaration of Independance, the Charter, the Magna Carta etc. The rights and rreedoms these documents articulate are self-evident. Would it also be a fact that those rights and freedoms are also protected by the goverments....And on the other hand what good is a law or decree if it can not be applied to everyone....without enforcement it really leaves the matter to our goverments to ensure we recieve atleast the basic rights does it not...What good is having something that you can not exericise without the permission of the goverment. I can exercise all my rights without permission of the government. I can talk to whom I wish, do what I wish with my person, beleieve what I wish, etc. etc. There are other rights that I am entitled to that are curbed only by the power of the state. the lesson here? Governments are far better and far more active at curbing rights than they are facilitating their free play. e beginnings of alot of states or nations have begun with conflict....whether to to separate from it's current goverment or Adminstrative control...or to throw someone off a piece of land they wish to inhabit....to do that the people form some form of goverment or controling agency first trying the political options but alot of the time it ends in armed conflict...it is these people that have stepped up to fight for what they want a new life, goverment, or thier rights and freedoms back that are responsiable for giving those rights and freedoms to future generations...Rights and freedoms are there to improve our way of life,to give us a better quality of life, to give us direction when creating new laws,or freedoms...they influence alot of our values and morals, and help define "us" those people that make up our nation....They are there to make the people happy, content ...happy people are more productive .. the right set of rights and freedoms also attracts new people into the country... No. Rights and freedoms are not a marketing tool or the property of the state. Our form of goverment is suppose to act on what is best for the nation, or the collective...we enjoy alot more rights and freedoms than your examples, simply because it must keep our citizens happy or that goverment will perish....we have the option of electing those individuals into power, and if we are not happy then we change the goverment...we may not have much power as individuals but as a collective group we can and most often do persaude the goverment and it's chioces....The Nazi's or Russia were acting on what was best for the few people in power...not the nation or collective...the people did not have a say or an opinion on anything...they controled the masses through fear and extreme control... Oh? The Nazi's whole ideology was founded on the exaltation of the nation over the individual ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, ein Volk"). In the Soviet Union, the collective (party, state etc.) was paramount. The main trait shared by these and other authoritarian regimes is the sublimation of individual rights into the whole. The difference betweem these countries and our democracies is one of degree. Now, I'm, generally not anti-state. But the power of the state is but a tool and can be misused. The bigger the government and more all-encompassing it becomes, the more likely it is to abuse its power. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Black dog: The UN declaration did not create the rights it contains anymore than the U.S Declaration of Independance, the Charter, the Magna Carta etc. The rights and rreedoms these documents articulate are self-evident. That's not true. These rights were not granted to me by government, a fact many governments recognize (Canada is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."). So, if our rights are guaranteed and ours by the fact of our birth, by what authority does the government and its agents have to take those away? Then whom created these rights and freedoms, have we found the 11 th tablet handed down to Moses....and if we all know or they are self evident then why would the goverments have to reinstate those rights and freedoms on a document if it was not thier intention to proclaim them as thier own...to tell it's citizens here are your rights and freedoms....that we guarantee....in fact laying down the ground rules.... I can exercise all my rights without permission of the government. I can talk to whom I wish, do what I wish with my person, beleieve what I wish, etc. etc. There are other rights that I am entitled to that are curbed only by the power of the state. the lesson here? Governments are far better and far more active at curbing rights than they are facilitating their free play. The goverment has already given you permission by stating that here is the rights and freedoms we guarantee you should have...(according to Hugo they curtail those rights you mentioned as well) No. Rights and freedoms are not a marketing tool or the property of the state. There not, if you decide to imigrate to another country, how would you decide which one you wanted to move to..Spin the globe and piont or do some research and check out what is like to live there...having a good set of rights and freedoms can be used as a marketing tool....to attract new people....as for the actual ownership of rights and freedoms does it matter ...if they are controled by the state.... Oh? The Nazi's whole ideology was founded on the exaltation of the nation over the individual ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, ein Volk"). In the Soviet Union, the collective (party, state etc.) was paramount. The main trait shared by these and other authoritarian regimes is the sublimation of individual rights into the whole. The difference betweem these countries and our democracies is one of degree One people, one nation, one leader, what he forgot was one vioce....did hilter ever consult the people about anything...was there an opposition party....(there was but they seem to disappear) The main trait was that the individual was to serve the state (in those cases the state was Hilter, or Stalin) and they ruled to serve themselfs....not the people... Now, I'm, generally not anti-state. But the power of the state is but a tool and can be misused. The bigger the government and more all-encompassing it becomes, the more likely it is to abuse its power I agree ..power can corrupt that is why in my opinion democracy is one of the best forms of goverment as it is far more limiting to the goverment than say a dictatorship......although true communism Marist lenin if practiced in the fashion it was designed to ...seems fairer....That has yet to be done however...because like we both said power corrupts... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Hugo Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 If you had truely visted dachau what feelings did you have when you walked through the camps seen all those big posters on the walls of the people and thier conditions or walked through the mass grave site in the back ...or walked through the ovens and smelled that sickening sweet ordour....... I am getting really tired of this. I'm not going to answer any further questions on this topic as long as you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me. In debate, both parties ask questions and are equally entitled to have them answered. If you are just going to question me, this stops being a debate and turns into a mentor-student session. Answer this question: What is the difference between Country A and Country B? No more excuses, insults, and distractions. No i don't and if you could not convince the 1/2 dozen or so others involved in that post that your theories are valid how could you convince an intellectual gaint as myself.... I don't know. Could I convince an "intellectual giant" that sentences generally only end with one period? Apart from that, this is an ad populum fallacy. Because a theory is not fashionable or widely accepted does not mean it is wrong. War is not a ceastion of rules, but a political tool All political tools involve violence, but violence is the cessation of the observation of rules. What you know as "war" is when the rulers of a State feel their interests are threatened by another State, inbetweentimes, they simply wage war against their own citizens. Violence knows no rules. It is the imposition of the will of the strong on the weak. The only rules that apply are the ones that the strong choose to apply to themselves, which are no rules at all since their conduct is governed by the principle of "I do what I feel like." Hence Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, Fallujah etc. Even those countries who ostensibly fight by the Geneva Convention continually prove my point that "rules of war" are followed strictly optionally. Does another person have the right to agress anyone....even if that they believe it is there right No. nd my question to you was would you use deadly force to protect you, your family, your friends and your land....which brings me to the land question who decides it is your land...and why can you use deadly force to protect it if you don't truely own it... Review the thread I linked to. It's all been explained before. Are you saying your theories are invalid or impractical or that it would not be possiable under this form of goverment .... The latter. Quote
Hugo Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 regardless of what it is it will not be good enough for you because in the excution of my job i may have to take a life....and yet you have repeatly said you would defend your family friends and properity because it fits your believes i just happen to believe that the morals and values of my country are worth defending Who said it was your country? Do you own it? What right do you have to kill for it? What is a country anyway? It's not a homogenous entity. It has no unity of purpose. It isn't physically identifiable. It's just an illusion that people such as yourself use as an excuse for all sorts of nefarious deeds. "under our current goverment i don't nor do they have to ask you do you want to be defended" So what the government says is just, is just? Then the Holocaust was just dandy with you, I expect, since the "legitimate" German government said that it was moral and just to murder the Jews, the Roma, blacks, homosexuals, the physically and mentally handicapped, etc. And before you start prevaricating on the legitimacy of the Nazi government, let's just say that the (fully constitutional) Nazi rise to power and subsequent rigging of elections was really no different in principle to all the Liberal shenanigans in Canada, or Bill Clinton's illegal campaign contributions, etc. Basically, if the Nazi government was illegitimate, then so is the Canadian government, and the American government, and indeed every government in the world. Because it would give me more insite into why, and how you form your opinions...perhaps understand you better...or is it you feel more comfortable attacking me or my opinions because you know i'm a canadian soldier... I never asked you what you did. All the personal information here was volunteered by you, and frankly, I don't care. I've had the same arguments with both military personnel and with armchair warhawks in the past. Your arguments will stand or fall on their own merit and your personal background makes absolutely no difference to me. Unlike you, I don't generally make the mistake of judging people as members of a group rather than as the individuals that they are. Nor would I stoop to an ad hominem fallacy. Are you saying that these 30 million need to have a unified agenda forced on them by an all-powerful government? Yes that is what i'm saying... Then I have difficulty understanding your objection to Nazism. It seems to me that your assessment of a tyrannical nature is entirely dependent upon your personal prejudices. E.g. it's evil for the Nazis to impose a unified agenda of building a great Reich, but it's good for the Canadian government to impose a unified agenda of socialized medicine. It is right and just to fight for the latter, but evil to fight for the former. Basically, you want government to do what you want and you don't reject force if it is necessary. In principle, you're no different from Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao Zedong, etc. words i live by every day... These words are empty. You can't even explain the meaning of them to me. You just keep repeating them. If you want to live by an empty slogan, fine, but when you start claiming the right to kill people based on it then I must object in the strongest possible terms. Niether have i , and yet you have labeled soldiers wife beaters drunks, and people who cruise bars and pick fights I don't believe I did so. I pointed out the greater tendency for soldiers to do these things and asked how it affected your contention that soldiers are better people than civilians. So far, I've received no answer. I've asked you serveral times to verify your grandfathers accounts and you have not leaving me to believe you have been BS me the entire time. You don't have to believe my story about my grandfather. If you want I can find you a ton of objective and independent evidence on the existence of PTSD and shell-shock. That's the point I'm making. You're trying to make this argument about my grandfather when it isn't. I'm just using his example. Let me be the first to say that my arguments have been more influenced by Hugo than the other way around. Why, thank you. High praise indeed. Quote
Hugo Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Would it also be a fact that those rights and freedoms are also protected by the goverments Even a cursory glance through history will show you that governments are by far the greatest violators of rights and freedoms. For an example, the peak murder rate in the USA was 10/100,000. This was considered very, very high. If we assume that the average murder rate in the world in the 20th Century was about 1/100,000, that means that, given an average world population of 3 billion in the 20th Century, about 3 million people were murdered. R. J. Rummel estimates that, besides war, governments were responsible for about 150 million murders (executions, man-made famines etc). Therefore, in the last century, governments have been about 50 times as murderous as private citizens. The argument that governments protect rights and freedoms is pure and undiluted horsecrap. The beginnings of alot of states or nations have begun with conflict Actually, the beginnings of all states and nations began with conquest. Read up on Rothbard, Oppenheimer, and others who have studied this question for many years and found that the nation-state is invariably created when one group of people conquers and enslaves another. The myth that governments are created by social contract is not borne out by a single State currently existing or in the entirety of human history. Rights and freedoms are there to improve our way of life No, they are not. They are there because they are an innate part of being human, violable but inalienable. "Improvement" and "better quality" are completely subjective terms that can only be fulfilled by individuals according to their own perceptions. Your argument makes it seem that rights and freedoms are a means to an end. They are not. They are the end. Our form of goverment is suppose to act on what is best for the nation, or the collective What collective? What are their names? Where do they live? Who is "society"? Who comprises "the nation"? All these things are abstract concepts that don't actually exist. "Society" is not monolithic, has no purpose, no goals, no desires, takes no actions, etc. It does not exist. The Nazi's or Russia were acting on what was best for the few people in power Yes, and the Canadian government is acting on what is best (supposedly) for the few people who comprise a technical majority (right now, 23% of the electorate). The difference between the Nazis and us is that the group of people that the Canadian government serves is somewhat larger than the group that the Nazis served. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Then whom created these rights and freedoms, have we found the 11 th tablet handed down to Moses....and if we all know or they are self evident then why would the goverments have to reinstate those rights and freedoms on a document if it was not thier intention to proclaim them as thier own...to tell it's citizens here are your rights and freedoms....that we guarantee....in fact laying down the ground rules.... Governement proclimations don't do anything but give me what I already have by virtue of being a human being. The only reason such rights are codified by government is because the system, of legal codes taht are the framework of the state. If no government existed there would be no need to articulate fundamental rights. The goverment has already given you permission by stating that here is the rights and freedoms we guarantee you should have...(according to Hugo they curtail those rights you mentioned as well) That's not permission: all it is saying is "these are the rights which we, the state, will (theoretically) not infringe upon." The collary to this is that there are rights the state allows itself to infinge upon. There not, if you decide to imigrate to another country, how would you decide which one you wanted to move to..Spin the globe and piont or do some research and check out what is like to live there...having a good set of rights and freedoms can be used as a marketing tool....to attract new people....as for the actual ownership of rights and freedoms does it matter ...if they are controled by the state.... You're not making a great case for government here. basically, you are saying our great claim to fame is that we infinge upon indiviudal rights less often and less egregiously as others. Whoop-dee-doo. In any case, you are simply validating my statement that governments can only take away rights, not give them. The main trait was that the individual was to serve the state (in those cases the state was Hilter, or Stalin) and they ruled to serve themselfs....not the people... The state was the people (hence "one people, one reich"). So the individual that served teh state was serving the whole German people. Essentially, it was just an extreme version of the ideology you've been espousing throughout this thread. I agree ..power can corrupt that is why in my opinion democracy is one of the best forms of goverment as it is far more limiting to the goverment than say a dictatorship......although true communism Marist lenin if practiced in the fashion it was designed to ...seems fairer....That has yet to be done however...because like we both said power corrupts... Democracy's biggest success is in creating the illussion of representation. Again, as was articlulated before, the differences between Canada and Nazi germany are one's of degree, not principle. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Dear Black Dog, In any case, you are simply validating my statement that governments can only take away rights, not give them.Hugo and I had a lengthy discussion on this under 'Tyranny vs. Freedom". Basically, a 'right' is merely a wish. It (a 'right') can be bestowed or conferred upon you, by those you interact with, (even gov't), or by providence of nature, if you wield the overwhelming force to make it so or keep it so. Reminds me of an old bit from Monty Python, in The Life Of Brian, where some male zealots were talking, and... zealot 1: "I want to have babies". Zealot 2: "You can't" Zealot 1: "Don't you oppress me!" Zealot 2: "I'm not oppressing you, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?" Zealot one ponders this and.... Zealot 1: "Alright, then, I want the right to have babies". Zealot 2: "Fine, you can have the right to have babies". Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Black Dog Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Hugo and I had a lengthy discussion on this under 'Tyranny vs. Freedom". Basically, a 'right' is merely a wish. It (a 'right') can be bestowed or conferred upon you, by those you interact with, (even gov't), or by providence of nature, if you wield the overwhelming force to make it so or keep it so. That's ridiculous. By the same logic, your rights can be abrogated by those with the authority to do so and if you lack the means of defending your rights, you must simply accept it? Thus slavery, repression, murder and torture are acceptable. (And, upon reading the thread you mention, I see that you attempt to divorce the concept of rights from the concept of morality: a futile gesture as there can be no morality without an understanding of rights and no rights without morality. Destroy eithe rconcept and you are left with the philosophy and worldview of the predator.) Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Dear Black Dog, Destroy eithe rconcept and you are left with the philosophy and worldview of the predator.)This is what humans as a race have done. Hugo implies that this is only the case 'with exception', and that since humans are demonstrably superior, somehow, somewhere, 'rights' were created only for the 'superior'... Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Black Dog Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 This is what humans as a race have done. Hugo implies that this is only the case 'with exception', and that since humans are demonstrably superior, somehow, somewhere, 'rights' were created only for the 'superior'... Uh...what? Hugo quite clearly states that rights are (and I quote) " Rights aren't conferred, they're a part of being human. What's conferred is the respect or lack thereof others have for them." Therefore, rights are not "created" for the superior. In any case, I'm not gonna bother getting into this discussion because it was already dealt with in the other thread and I think your pretzel like twisting about there speaks to the validiaty of your argument. Quote
Hugo Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Hugo and I had a lengthy discussion on this under 'Tyranny vs. Freedom". Basically, a 'right' is merely a wish. It (a 'right') can be bestowed or conferred upon you, by those you interact with, (even gov't), or by providence of nature, if you wield the overwhelming force to make it so or keep it so. By far the most hilarious thing was to watch Thelonius first tell me that he feared anarchy because it would lead to the Hobbesian war of all against all, and then tell me that the only correct social system for humanity was the war of all against all, and any other system would be founded on erroneous and delusional ideas of morality. In other words, he told me that his own ideas were based on nonsense. This is what humans as a race have done. Hugo implies that this is only the case 'with exception', and that since humans are demonstrably superior, somehow, somewhere, 'rights' were created only for the 'superior'... This is getting back to the human/animal rights argument. Thelonius contends, or seems to contend (despite his argument that rights are an illusion), that animals and plants should enjoy equal rights with humans. My contention is that the existence of humans depends upon the subjugation of animals and plants. Therefore, if humans are to have rights, then animals and plants must therefore not have rights. If they are to have rights, then that means that humans are not able to exploit them and so will die, therefore, humans have no rights. Faced with the inescapable choice of awarding rights to either humans or animals and plants, I must always pick the philosophizing, developing, moralizing, technological humans. The desire to award equal rights to both is, sadly, just wishful thinking. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted June 22, 2005 Report Posted June 22, 2005 Dear Black Dog, Hugo quite clearly states that rights are (and I quote) " Rights aren't conferred, they're a part of being human. What's conferred is the respect or lack thereof others have for them."Then pick one up and show them to me. Even just one. The 'pretzel-like twisting' you both seem to find amusing was Hugo's attempt to twist pragmatism into someone declaring support and 'rah-rahing' the Nazi genocide of Jews. I was actually quite surprised that Hugo would be so child-like. and then tell me that the only correct social system for humanity was the war of all against all,Further, the twisting of words and inserting his own sentences as mine does little to justify any argument. I did not say it was the best way, and certainly not the only way, I merely stated that at this time, that is the way things stand. Capitalism, or the 'profit-system', as we have known it, depends on the subjugation of other humans, and their 'rights'. Someday it might not need be so, but to hang onto the system because It has now become technologically possible to exist without animals, however, this was not always the casewould be akin to saying slavery wasn't 'wrong'. (And indeed, Hugo claims that slavery in the US only went away because it became economically unviable, and had nothing to do with 'rights'.) I would say that any hypocricy would be on the part of Hugo, for he made no contention that slavery is a violation of the rights he claims humans inherently have, it only became unprofitable. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
PocketRocket Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 THELONIOUS, actually, it ended slightly differently.......I have made corrections in bold print...... zealot 1: "I want to have babies".Zealot 2: "You can't" Zealot 1: "Don't you oppress me!" Zealot 2: "I'm not oppressing you, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?" Zealot one ponders this and.... Zealot 3: "We all agree that he can't have babies, not having a womb, which is no one's fault, not even the Romans, but we can agree that he be given the RIGHT to have babies" Zealot 1: "What's the point in him having the RIGHT to have babies, when he can't have babies?" Zealot 3: "It's symbolic of our struggle against oppression" Zealot 1: (under his breath) "It's symbolic of his struggle against reality" Sorry, but I'm a bit fanatical about my Python To ARMYGUY: I see you're taking some flack from at least one member here regarding your decision to join the military. Just to level the playing field a bit, I want to offer my thanks to you for having stepped forward and offering your services. It's easy, and sometimes fashionable, to slag the military, and many people do. These are generally the people who will scream the loudest about how the government should be protecting them when the Huns are at the gate. But some of us realize the dedication of our forces. And I for one have very deep gratitude for anyone who has volunteered to be putting his/her life on the line, should the need arise, to protect me, and all other Canadians. Thank you. As an aside, I firmly believe the Airborne got shafted as a matter of political expediency over the actions of a few bad apples. An example of our best and our bravest, and their reward was to be disbanded. One more statement in this area; it is my opinion that until I step forward and put MY life on the line, I have no right to judge someone who has done so. Keep the faith, friend, and keep your powder dry. Quote I need another coffee
Black Dog Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 Then pick one up and show them to me. Even just one. The 'pretzel-like twisting' you both seem to find amusing was Hugo's attempt to twist pragmatism into someone declaring support and 'rah-rahing' the Nazi genocide of Jews. I was actually quite surprised that Hugo would be so child-like. Rights are philosophical constructs, but I think the classic Cartesian utterance "I think therefore I am" is evidence of the existence of rights: I can conceive of rights, therefore, rights exist. As for pragmatism: pah. I read your arguments on the subject: they corkscrew about wildly without landing on anything substansial. Certainly there was no accusation that you supported the Holocaust: simply that your amoral view of rights (or the non-existence thereof) can be used to justify crimes like the extermination of Europe's Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, etc. By stating that rights are not an intrinsic to human existence but rather something that can be conferred upon or revoked by others at will, you are saying that our rights and, therefore, our persons are essentially the property of someone else and thus any decision by that party to abrogate our rights is morally justifiable. Thus the Nazis, since they did not view the Jews as having rights, were justified in trying to exerminate them. Such a viwpoint is antithetical to the humanist ideals which are the bedrock of our civilization and which hold that all men are born with rights. Quote
Hugo Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 Then pick one up and show them to me. Even just one. The 'pretzel-like twisting' you both seem to find amusing was Hugo's attempt to twist pragmatism into someone declaring support and 'rah-rahing' the Nazi genocide of Jews. I was actually quite surprised that Hugo would be so child-like. I'm not going to cross these threads over. The old one is still open and if you want to put the gloves on again, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. I simply gave a summary for those who wouldn't have time to read the thread in full, and according to the one independent observer here who took the time to read the thread (i.e. Blackdog), my summary is accurate. Capitalism, or the 'profit-system', as we have known it, depends on the subjugation of other humans, and their 'rights'. This is completely backwards and wrongheaded. Capitalism proper (as opposed to the various forms of socialism and neomercantilism that, these days, have assumed that name) depends upon the complete fulfillment of personal and property rights, or at least complete fulfillment as a goal, rejects all coercion, fraud and the initiation of violence, and holds that the only human interaction that is moral or just is that which occurs with the consent of all parties. If you believe that this is subjugation and rights-violation, I'd like to hear exactly what rights are being violated. I would say that any hypocricy would be on the part of Hugo, for he made no contention that slavery is a violation of the rights he claims humans inherently have, it only became unprofitable. Now, this is just a lie, because I distinctly remember saying that slavery is inherently wrong, and moreover, the wrongness of slavery therefore means that taxation is also wrong, because taxation amounts to the expropriation of labour or fruits thereof. Simply put, we no longer have Southern planters as slaveowners, but men in Ottawa, Washington DC, London etc. Quote
Hugo Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 One more statement in this area; it is my opinion that until I step forward and put MY life on the line, I have no right to judge someone who has done so.Keep the faith, friend, and keep your powder dry. The problem is that you may have to put your life on the line to defend the interests of someone else. States create wars, and the big lie they tell is that they are defending their citizens, when in fact it is the other way around: they are asking or compelling their citizens to defend the State. If we say that Germany has declared war on France, this doesn't mean that all Germans have decided that they hate all Frenchmen and must attack them immediately. This means that the German government has decided that it will attack the French government and will muster armies to do so. Since each government regards citizens and property within their borders as chattel, it also follows that each government will attack citizens and property who are identified with the opposing government. Without governments, there are no armies and no wars. The only rights violations committed are by private citizens, and as I have demonstrated, a private citizen has a far, far lesser capacity to inflict harm than a State These are generally the people who will scream the loudest about how the government should be protecting them when the Huns are at the gate. Not me. If the Hunnic government attacks my government, I rightly recognise that it is none of my business. Indeed, this used to be the pattern of warfare until a few centuries ago. It used to be considered a spectator sport: the citizenry would gather on the town walls to watch the armies of noblemen duke it out in the fields. Of course, if an individual Hun attacks me, personally, then I will defend myself, personally. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 Hugo: Review the thread I linked to. It's all been explained before. No, it is not, you said you would protect your family, friends and property...you did not say you would use deadly force to protect them....spell it out for all to see... All political tools involve violence, but violence is the cessation of the observation of rules. What you know as "war" is when the rulers of a State feel their interests are threatened by another State, inbetweentimes, they simply wage war against their own citizens When was the last time the Canadian goverment waged war agian'st it citizens... You don't have to believe my story about my grandfather. If you want I can find you a ton of objective and independent evidence on the existence of PTSD and shell-shock. That's the point I'm making. You're trying to make this argument about my grandfather when it isn't. I'm just using his example No, you were bullsh*ting me , to use false info to reinforce your statements. that he was forced into joining the army "period". And that because he suffers from PTSD his efforts were not worth it, and he is not a better person for it. It also goes to show that if you had BS me once to prove your pionts or opinions how many other times have you done that. These words are empty. You can't even explain the meaning of them to me. You just keep repeating them. If you want to live by an empty slogan, fine, but when you start claiming the right to kill people based on it then I must object in the strongest possible terms. I have explained them to you clearly. It is you that will not accept them. Duty, honour, and Country are not hollow words to most Canadians, they are who we are ,what we are and why we do the things we do. I don't recalling claiming any right to kill people, nor have i cliamed that i have killed people. I don't believe I did so. I pointed out the greater tendency for soldiers to do these things and asked how it affected your contention that soldiers are better people than civilians. So far, I've received no answer. I have not contended that soldiers are better than civilians but better than most ordinary people. Who said it was your country? Do you own it? What right do you have to kill for it? What is a country anyway? It's not a homogenous entity. It has no unity of purpose. It isn't physically identifiable. It's just an illusion that people such as yourself use as an excuse for all sorts of nefarious deeds. Lets start with thour national anthem shall we in case you forgot the words are below. O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. I am a Canadian citizen, therefore Canada is my country, It is repeated in my oath of allegiance, No i do not own it, but am a part of it. The constitution of Canada has given those powers to the goverment which it turns gives them to me. A country, a land, or a state, is a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people....It's purpose is to allow a large group of people a way of living together, under the same rules and rights.It is identifiable in the sense it is clearly marked on maps,there is our flag,and it's people. What nerfarious deeds have i commited...or for that matter what nefarious deeds have Canada commited. Which brings me to this piont if you are so anti goverment, anti democratic, anti everything really, why are you still living in Canada. why are you not in antartica proclaiming your own state or nation...without goverment... I never asked you what you did. All the personal information here was volunteered by you, and frankly, I don't care. I've had the same arguments with both military personnel and with armchair warhawks in the past. Your arguments will stand or fall on their own merit and your personal background makes absolutely no difference to me. Unlike you, I don't generally make the mistake of judging people as members of a group rather than as the individuals that they are. Nor would I stoop to an ad hominem fallacy. Because it would give me more insite into why, and how you form your opinions...perhaps understand you better...or is it you feel more comfortable attacking me or my opinions because you know i'm a canadian soldier... Can you show me anywhere that i said i was going to judge you...i believe i said to understand how you are forming your opinions.And yes you have stooped to Ad hominem fallacies. I made the claim that soldiers were better than most ordinary citizens...you reply impossiable how could any one that murders a person be better...then comes the wife beating ,drunks, and assault charges...not to mention your out right lies about your grandfather to further prove a piont... Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Hugo Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 No, it is not, you said you would protect your family, friends and property...you did not say you would use deadly force to protect them....spell it out for all to see... I wouldn't use deadly force to protect my family, friends and property because I'm a pacifist, however, I recognise the right of others to use deadly force to defend themselves if it were necessary. I have explained them to you clearly. It is you that will not accept them. Where have you explained them clearly? All you have done is to repeat them mindlessly. You have provided absolutely no definition of "honour", "country", or "duty" anywhere in this thread despite being repeatedly asked to do so. When was the last time the Canadian goverment waged war agian'st it citizens... How do you define "war", first of all? No, you were bullsh*ting me , to use false info to reinforce your statements. that he was forced into joining the army "period". You cannot prove that it's a lie. I can't prove it's true, either. The difficulty of this message board is that personal information and personal anecdotal evidence is unverifiable. This is why I hesitate to give you any further information about me. All you have here is your logic and what objective evidence you can muster. My grandfather was an example I used of a well-known and well-documented - by your own admission, no less - phenomenon. Your whining about my grandfather seemingly serves to disguise the fact that you have no answer to the actual question: how does destroying men's souls with PTSD and shell-shock make them better people? It also goes to show that if you had BS me once to prove your pionts or opinions how many other times have you done that. Never. It is forbidden for anyone of my particular religious faith to knowingly lie and I take my faith seriously. I don't recalling claiming any right to kill people I don't recall you claiming you didn't have a right to kill people either. So what would you do if your superior officer told you to kill someone? I have not contended that soldiers are better than civilians but better than most ordinary people. You're just making stuff up now. Here's your original quote on June 17th at 2:15 pm: There is alot more to it [soldiering] than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... ... Because they are willing to fight or defend all the rights and freedoms that you enjoy today, to ensure that you have them tommorrow. You said that you contended that soldiers were better than 'most ordinary people', but what you actually said was that soldiers were better, period, which means the group they are better than must be non-soldiers, i.e. civilians. Lets start with thour national anthem Because there's a song about it, it must be real? I'm sure you'd tell me that John Lennon's "Imagine" is an impossible dream, but when it comes to the Canadian national anthem, it's somehow compelling evidence? Quote
Hugo Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 I am a Canadian citizen, therefore Canada is my country But every other Canadian citizen also can make the same claim. If Canada is all their country, how is it owned? Does each person own a one-thirty-millionth part of everything in the country? Does that mean I own a one-thirty-millionth part of you? The constitution of Canada has given those powers to the goverment which it turns gives them to me. It's a good thing that pieces of paper can give things to people, because I have a sheet of paper here that just gave me all your property. Come on, hand it over. Which brings me to this piont if you are so anti goverment, anti democratic, anti everything really, why are you still living in Canada. Do you have a right to ask me to leave? Does anyone else, for that matter? A country, a land, or a state, is a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people A country, a land and a state are not the same thing. A state is an institution that exerts a monopoly of law and enforcement over a certain geographical area. Land is a geographically defined amount of soil, rock, mountains etc. A country is an abstract concept that does not exist in the physical world, attempts to define which insist on the aggregation of nonaggregate things. What nerfarious deeds have i commited...or for that matter what nefarious deeds have Canada commited. I don't know what crimes you've committed. And as I've said above, "Canada" hasn't committed any deeds of any kind because it isn't an acting agent. I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it is repetition of your earlier points, and if you want a response you can use the scrollbar in your browser to see what I said when you first posited them. Quote
newbie Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 From Army Guy: "...I have not contended that soldiers are better than civilians but better than most ordinary people..." Please clarify the difference between civilian and ordinary people. Quote
Chimera Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 From BD: Rights are philosophical constructs, but I think the classic Cartesian utterance "I think therefore I am" is evidence of the existence of rights: I can conceive of rights, therefore, rights exist. From Hugo: A country is an abstract concept that does not exist in the physical world, attempts to define which insist on the aggregation of nonaggregate things. So one of you says my rights exist because I believe they do, while they other says my Country does not exist even though I believe it does. Interesting. You both seem to despise the state (government), yet you also both laud your rights. Interestingly enough, these rights were set forth by the UN, the government of all governments. As well, if the two of you had your way, we would live in a government free society (which, by default would be lawless, see def'n of anarchy). Unfortunately this would remove some of MY rights, such as, oh I don't know: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." And lets not forget, the lack of nations would also remove some of my rights, such as: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." "(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality." "(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." "(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country." "(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Just to mention a few. There are more of course, but I won't bore you with the details. Or do the two of you get to decide which of my rights are valid and which aren't? And by the way Hugo, you said your father was forced into the army, and watched his friends die at Dunkirk. Dunkirk was in 1939. Conscription did not begin until 1944 (except for homeland defence, which was a farce). The falseness of your story does have relevance as it brings your character into question, as AG pointed out. Quote
Hugo Posted June 23, 2005 Report Posted June 23, 2005 So one of you says my rights exist because I believe they do, while they other says my Country does not exist even though I believe it does. Interesting. I would say that rights are an innate part of being human. I think that Blackdog was trying to explain that thinking discovers rights but does not create them, the difference between discovered law and imposed law, and that which can conceive of having rights has rights. This is why he said "evidence of the existence of rights": thinking about rights reveals that they exist, rather than bringing them into existence. However, thinking that something exists does not make it exist. You can believe a large pink elephant exists five miles above Toronto. That doesn't place one there. You both seem to despise the state (government), yet you also both laud your rights. Interestingly enough, these rights were set forth by the UN, the government of all governments. Ah, so you are saying that the UN created all rights, and nobody had any rights before the UN? So the Holocaust was not a crime at all, because it was pre-UN, but the atrocities in the Sudan are crimes, because they are post-UN? And by the way Hugo, you said your father was forced into the army, and watched his friends die at Dunkirk. Dunkirk was in 1939. Conscription did not begin until 1944 My grandfather, not my father. British conscription began in 1938 under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. My grandfather was drafted under this legislation and sent to France as part of the BEF, and was evacuated in Operation Dynamo in the first days of June 1940. Any other WWII history you're confused about? As well, if the two of you had your way, we would live in a government free society (which, by default would be lawless, see def'n of anarchy). What definition of anarchy? The "anarchy = chaos" definition, which was deliberately created by French, German, Russian and British government propagandists in the 19th Century to try and discredit the increasingly influential anarchist movement? Do you know this was why Tolstoy never identified himself as an anarchist, because the Tsarist establishment had successfully associated anarchism with terrorism and random violence, although Tolstoy himself was both an anarchist and a pacifist? Anarchy is not lawlessness. Law comes from liberty, not vice versa, and anarchy is liberty. Right now we have governments that break all of their own laws. They steal and call it taxation. They enslave and call it jury duty. They counterfeit and call it inflation. They defraud and call it politics. They kidnap and call it arrest. They spy and call it wiretapping. They break and enter and call it a search warrant. They murder and call it war. They presume you innocent until accused, make themselves judges in their own cases, and disregard their own laws so long as it is them that break them. What's lawless, exactly? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.