|
| Thread: Why the hatred? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 16, 2004 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And btw, like you did all that until now
Excuse me? Are you calling me a liar? I assure you I have been involved in voluntary work for the last 6 years actually and am involved in an organisation that specifically helps both local and international charities.
Quote:
Why I find this hard to believe? Could you please provide me with a respectable link which proves that?
Because it fails to fit with your biased opinion of the western world perhaps? Try looking for Jubilee 2000, I don't have the time to do your research for you.
Quote:
But companies are subject of laws, and the extent to which they are, depends on the government control of economical activity. You can legitimly disagree here, but I believe it’s neccessery in order to prevent capitalism going wild.
That's the point, they often are not based in countries that attempt to enforce the laws, they're based in off-shore tax havens or countries with laughably poor records on such an issue. It's not always just the fault or the responsiblity of the western world for this problem. Of course they should persue the companies, however only to a certain degree can it be done.
Quote:
It’s not our export system that is the problem. Just because you see imported goods in Britain, it doesn’t mean that the world trade system is fair and functioning. I already explained what’s the problem with it, so i’m not gonna do it again. However, you seem like a smart person, and i know it’s all clear to you, proven by the fact you didn’t quote those things (and you always quote everything )
Yeah yeah, first you claim we tax your exports to heavily, then when I point out that this is a problem for our country also you ignore me. Then I point out that we support (against common sense as it annoys the americans no end) that we support the commenwealth countries you ignore me. Fact is that I'd rather buy british made goods than anyone elses, not because I hate your economy, but because I wish to support my own. Failing that I like to suport the commonwealth as it's part of the British payback to the empire. Failing all that I try to buy these things called "fair-trade" which support proper pay and conditions for those who make the goods. Which partly invalidates your "rich countries theory" I can only do what I personally can to help. You won't change capitalism by simply complaining about it being "unfair", I prefer to do what little I can, and I do.
I do btw understand the world economic system, however your continually far-fetched attempts to make it look like the west is completely to blame for this, or that no western country ever takes action to try to prevent this is getting annoying. Some people in the west do what they can to support change for the benefit of the third world, but you can't change something as complex as capitalism easily. In some respects people here are as much suffering from capitalism as abroad and we can't change it much either...
Quote:
Oh, and I perfectly understand that British economy also struggles for its success, but you miss a main point: It doesn’t struggle for survival, like Third World countries economies, and because of their failure to do so, people die there. A huge portion of that fault can be prescribed to rich countries policies.
And a big portion to the policies of the governments of those countries also. It still doesn't make ME personally to blame for every last death when I and others do try to help. Ditch the guilt trip already, it's getting silly.
Quote:
It’s absolutely not the case that those artifact transactions were done legally then.
I'm astounded at how you can judge this so accurately given your generalisation.
Quote:
But mostly, conquering armies, petty thieves selling them to foreign collectors, is not what I would call legal. And even though you say emptying museums would be “harmful”, I don’t agree. It’s harmful for your country maybe, but it’s justice (if the country of origin has the necessary conditions for keeping these jewels).
Depends entirely, some countries do not have the expertise to ensure said art is preserved properly, sending it back would destroy it. Some might well be war zones, sending it back would endanger it. Some might not exist as a country any more, and there might be one or two countries laying claim to it. Much art was taken from personal collections, do we find the descendants and return it? What about something painted in France say by an italian painter of a German woman? Who does that get returned to?
Also if they are sold by either the then government or the person who then owned it, then that is legitimate and legal actually. As legitimate as any sale that went on a few centuries ago.
Quote:
But the argument about, “this generation has nothing to do with it” holds no value, because relations are between countries, not generations.
Which is fine if we live in a fantasy world were countries pay their debts from the pockets of war funds or businesses, however the simple truth is it will be taxpayers who will foot the bill. "countries" won't pay anything, people will, inescapable fact.
Quote:
Just as obligations and agreements remain when governments change, and entire generations also, the same way you cannot dodge responsibility. According to you, a 50-year term agreement can be legitimly broken because of the change of generations before it expires. This is not a principle in international law, you know.
Interesting theory but not the point. We signed no agreement, we continue to repay what we can through the commonwealth. International agreements can and far more importantly have been broken by countries also. International politics recognises that changes in government mean changes in attitude and stance, and maybe agreements. Look at spain's withdrawl from Iraq under a new leader. Interesting, but niave theory as I said. It's not the people's responsibility to be forever responsible for the past, nor is it the government's responsilbility to stick to agreements that it made 100+ years ago. Nor does this or any government. Welcome to the cold hard world of politics.
Quote:
But i did mention it as an example of giving back taken land to natives, a principle i believe should be followed, if done democratically. And might i remind you, in your own words, take the news about Zimbabwe with a pinch of salt.
Read any news story recently about the place. Talk to returning white farmers about their treatment. They all say the same thing. Some of those people have been in africa their entire lives, and sometimes 3 maybe 4 generations back also. They are as african as the black people there. Ask yourself this, does a person who lived on the land your house sits on 150 years ago have the right to throw you off it?
History is gone, living in it and acting out the present based on it achieves nothing and no progress.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 16, 2004 11:32 PM |
|
|
Powerful Argument
Hmm....interesting. I agree PrivateHudson. World integration is at hand. Let's welcome it with open arms. It's a big planet but not for much longer. It's time for us to stop generalizing ethnic cultures with respect to what rights they have to owning a piece of the earth.
Many native american indians believe the land cannot be owned by anyone. I agree with them. Let's be thankful for what we have and take care of things closest to us. If we all do our part then the world may become a better place.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 03:39 PM |
|
|
You gentlemen are touching on a subject that is tremendously complex and presents practical difficulties in the current nation-state system that are long-developing and entrenched. The fact that there are pockets of indigenous peoples drawn inside the boundaries of practically every nation state in the world has gotten little attention in the arena of international studies until recently. This situation is the upshot of the spread of the European-style nation-state system over the entire globe primarily over the last three centuries.
Last statistic I heard was that 67% of the world's wars are being waged by the indigenous (organic "nations") against the nation-state governments who impose their soverignty upon the organic indigenous nations within them, usually in the most tyrannical manner, evidencing the magnitude of the problem. This complex problem involves everything from legal / jurisdictional issues of territorial integrity, international legitimacy and sovereignty to economics, ecological issues, culture, and a host of other demographic social issues and concerns. It has come to be known in international studies as "the Fourth World phenomenon."
I believe if you google the term "Fourth World" you might find a lot of information on this. The United States' continuing failure to directly address the legitimate concerns raised by the people affected by the phenomenon in its international operating policies, such as neoliberalist economics and others, is perhaps one of the greatest sources of international tension and resentment toward the United States.
So, with the sincerest respect, and while I for one deeply appreciate the sentiment probably more than you can imagine, the problem is not so easily addressed as "let's all get along." 
<EDIT>
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.cwis.org/fourthw.html
(Wolfman, how do I make this a direct link again? I know you showed me before but I have forgotten..)
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 04:32 PM |
|
|
(Uh oh. Somebody flipped Peacemaker's on-switch. QUICK! Turn her off! TURN HER OFF!!!!)
Too late.
As I was saying, Land ownership (as your correctly pointed out Consis) is in many ways at the heart of this ongoing conflict, and in many ways is what caused it. There is a fundamental difference in ideologies that has repeatedly led to something akin to the following scenario:
EUROPEAN EXPLORER: (arrives.) Howdy do.
INDIGENOUS PERSON: Howdy do.
EE: So, is this your land?
IP: What do you mean, "our land?"
EE: Do you own this land?
IP: (laughs) Nobody owns this land! We belong to it, it does not belong to us.
EE: (the last comment flies right over their head) Oh, okay, so nobody owns this land?
IP: Correct.
EE: (sticks a flag in the ground) Okay, then we claim it.
IP: (walks away laughing, because they believe the concept of "owning" land is ludicrous) Yeah right, okay, whatever you say...
--- OR --
...EE: Well somebody has to own this land... Is it yours?
IP: Yeah, sure, it is "ours"... (snickering at the notion once again)
EE: Tell you what. I have some tools here that you've probably never seen, and some other pretty neat stuff too... wanna see?
IP: Yeah, sure.
EE: (pulls out some metal knives, scarves and very shiny plastic beads of various vivid colors)
IP: (as a group, all gather around and watch the EE skin a deer with the new knife) WOW!!! Cool stuff!!!!
EE: Let us have this land and these items will be yours.
IP: (among themselves, decide why not since the notion that somebody can "own" land is ludicrous) Yeah , sure. We'll take this stuff and let you call this land "yours..."
......
Before you (as the IP) know it, your whole nation has been rounded up at gunpoint and is being marched across the country to other land that is not "owned" so that the encroaching EE's have enough space to build their houses and stuff. You look over your shoulder and say goobye forever to your ancestor, a living breathing mother that was the land you once belonged to. A third of your number dies on the march because it is by foot during winter. When you arrive at your new "homeland," it is a vast desert devoid of the resources your whole economy was once based on, and you have to start all over again trying to come up with a new system.
......
In a few years, the EE's are back; just when you were starting to get your feet back on the ground... And tell you this land actually was owned -- by the EE's because they got there first, and they were really just loaning it to you. Now they have decided they need that land too because more EE's keep arriving in droves.
So, one day the army comes to your house and says you have to leave this area because they are going to have a big race of EE's and whoever gets to a big square of land first gets to keep it.
"Can I be in this race?" You ask.
"No," says the EE. You don't believe in owning land, remember?
.......
So you move again, this time into the lands where other IP nations were also removed to, and start crowding each other out. Suddenly you have no single area where your nation can function as a unit because several IP nations are getting all jumbled up together and begin fighting. But before the fighting can lead to any resolution about where your respective nations can live peacefully, the EE's come back and say,
EE: Guess what?
IP's: What?
EE: Well things in the EE world are moving along swimmingly, and well, we have these new things called automobiles that need oil. And guess what? All the oil is under your land...
.......
This is an extremely oversimplified illustration of the impact of this vast difference in ideologies between indigenous and western (European-style) nations about land ownership. The IP's only choice when faced with the land-grab is to change their whole way of thinking about the sacredness of land to conform with the global paradigm that land is a thing to be owned, subdued, reaped for everything it's worth and generally used as a possession.
If the IP nation does not do this and participate in the "land grab" then the IP nation has no way of surviving within the nation-state system as a viable economic competitor with territorial integrity which exploits its land in such a way as to have economic product. And even when the IP nation does choose to do this, it is usually too late because the nation-state has already drawn you within their boundaries, stuck their flag in the ground and claimed the land you are on is part of their "nation."
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 05:31 PM |
|
|
Here's some more links for those of you who want to pursue this topic:
http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/indigenous.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/00-indigenousguide.html
(Best to begin with Leaflet 10 on that last one)
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 17, 2004 07:49 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 17 Mar 2004
|
Well Earned
Ok Peacemaker I'm going "Lord Of the Rings" on you and I'm going to award you a citizen's Qp for the trilogy of posts you made.
This citizen's Qp is for you: 
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 02:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Because it fails to fit with your biased opinion of the western world perhaps? Try looking for Jubilee 2000, I don't have the time to do your research for you.
OK, I did the research, and you’d be surprised what I found. Totally negative (realistic) perspective of the way IMF and the World Bank are dealing with the debt cancellation process. And you’d do well to actually do the same, because it will give you a totally different perspective of things and hopefully make you realize why I’m skeptical about the West.
Quote:
Fact is that I'd rather buy British made goods than anyone elses, not because I hate your economy, but because I wish to support my own. Failing that I like to suport the commonwealth as it's part of the British payback to the empire. Failing all that I try to buy these things called "fair-trade" which support proper pay and conditions for those who make the goods.
I’m not saying you should support my economy. Have every possible freedom of choice for what you buy/sell, where, form who and to who; But leave that freedom to poorer countries also. Liberalization of the world market would actually be in favor of the poor countries. But mixing liberalization of poor countries’ markets, protectionism by rich countries and multinational companies dominance, as it is now, will lead to devastating effects for the Third World.
Here’s a quote from Jubilee 2000, an experts’ view on the matter:
“Finally, the IMF and World Bank appear to be again reversing to their 'blame the victim' mentality – a mentality that was already very much in evidence in the spring of this year, when they wrote that 'the growth of...exports...to a large extent reflects a country's economic policies.' They only indirectly admit that countries export performance is being limited by chronic price declines in their key commodities, by the fact that trade liberalisation under structural adjustment programmes has prevented poor countries from moving away from their dependence on primary commodities [30], by northern protectionism, and by the global reach of multinational corporations. [31] The IMF's ideological lens makes it impossible for them to see that global economic structures are doing everything they can to prevent poor countries from escaping their current predicament.“
Quote:
I do btw understand the world economic system, however your continually far-fetched attempts to make it look like the west is completely to blame for this, or that no western country ever takes action to try to prevent this is getting annoying. Some people in the west do what they can to support change for the benefit of the third world, but you can't change something as complex as capitalism easily.
I didn’t say that there were no initiatives to help poor countries in the West! Only the government general policy is against that. Also, I absolutely disagree that it’s only the West’s fault. Domestic governments are even guiltier for their countries condition, by not trying to solve the problems. I’m a type of person who always looks for the fault in himself and the primary role for solving the problem is, by no doubt, in the leaders of poor countries. You should know how much I criticize our Macedonian government, you’d say I’m a terrorist or something.
You also find a portion of the fault in the capitalist system, I see. They why the hell are you defending it all the time?! The first step of solving a problem is to identify it!
Quote:
It still doesn't make ME personally to blame for every last death when I and others do try to help.
Sorry lad, did I ever mentioned something about you being the guilty?! Your problem is, you identify with your government too much. That’s why you always paranoically try to defend it. And know, that I find you and others like you who help somehow, to be contributors to world stability and people who should serve as a role-model for others.
"countries" won't pay anything, people will, inescapable fact.
It’s always people who pay. A country cannot have money on its own, without taxing the people. I suppose you are familiar with the way the pension system works. Does this mean you can refuse to pay taxes for support of your country’s senior citizens (another generation, according to you)? You cannot do that. As a citizen you have rights and obligations.
International agreements can and far more importantly have been broken by countries also.
OK, a new perspective of the debate. Breaking international law is just fine.
The issue Peacemaker is talking about (nation-state and indigenous cultures) is closely linked with the Zimbabwe issue. Now, there we have the problem of land taken by newcomers, subjugation and oppression of the indigenous culture. Introduction of the nation-state system, and after many years of functioning, when somebody wants to give the land back to the rightful owners, problems rise. You say, that white families who have lived on that property since they were born have full right over the land. But what shall we do with the injustice brought upon those who had lived on that land for centuries before the Europeans came? You don’t care about their exploitation and lesser treatment by the nation-state government. You may choose to criticize Mugabe’s actions, but his main point is clear and fair for me (the potential corrupted decisions left out).
Peacemaker, I agree about the unfair treatment “the Forth World” had under nation-states in the past. But do you think that they are still oppressed today in USA and Europe. Wouldn’t you agree with a nation-state system that would give all the equal rights to the ethnical groups living within the boundaries of the state? (such as I think the case is in Europe)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 03:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Have every possible freedom of choice for what you buy/sell, where, form who and to who; But leave that freedom to poorer countries also
Enlighten me on how to do that then.... I do what I can Tell me the point of repeatedly commenting that my government is doing things wrong by it's nature, I can't change that now can I? Go pettition my government 
Quote:
You also find a portion of the fault in the capitalist system, I see. They why the hell are you defending it all the time?! The first step of solving a problem is to identify it!
Because I happen to think it's a damned sight better than communism or far left socialist economic systems. I don't like it, but I've seen a few alternatives, and I dislike them a lot more. Like democracy, far from perfect, but better than the forms of communism we tried.
Quote:
Sorry lad, did I ever mentioned something about you being the guilty?! Your problem is, you identify with your government too much. That’s why you always paranoically try to defend it. And know, that I find you and others like you who help somehow, to be contributors to world stability and people who should serve as a role-model for others.
HAHAHAHAAH you really need to try reading more than this thread before assuming you know my opinions of things. Defend my government paranoically? I take it you don't read much of my opinion on Iraq then... However, your tone has continually laid the impression that everyone living in such countries is very much responsible, after all we elect the government, the government controls the businesses and so on... All we have to do is change governments and the rest will fall into place right? Seriously, I don't either especially like or dislike either capitalism or my government, I see good in both to be honest. I don't see much point in whining about the evils of capitalism to me though. Not only does it have no effect since half the time I already know and still can't do anything, the rest of the time it sounds like you're accusing the person instead.
Quote:
It’s always people who pay. A country cannot have money on its own, without taxing the people
Congratulations, you've won the "stating the bleedin obvious after someone else has already done it" award this month
Quote:
I suppose you are familiar with the way the pension system works.
Depends, if you mean the common garden state one yes. If you mean private ones no.
Quote:
Does this mean you can refuse to pay taxes for support of your country’s senior citizens (another generation, according to you)?
*buzzer sounds* WRONG! That's an assumption too far if ever I saw one
I pay taxes to support them because they're in my country, contributed to my country, fought for my country in many cases and lastly, it pays towards supporting my own pension when I reach that age. I fail to see how my lack of will to pay taxes to someone who has done nothing to earn that reperation, nor in most cases even had the injustice visited on him has a link to my will to pay taxes on something that will benefit myself and to people who have earnt it by their actions, not their ancestors.
Quote:
OK, a new perspective of the debate. Breaking international law is just fine.
mmm, I think you'll find I said agreement actually, not law. As I said, countries recognise that changes in government equates to often changes in policy. Now some agreements are insoluble, take Hong Kong's return for example, however, if you follow the logic that treaties cannot be broken, that assumes that treaties signed centuries ago are also legitimate. Not logic at all, governments and agreements can and do change. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Now, there we have the problem of land taken by newcomers, subjugation and oppression of the indigenous culture.
Newcomers that have been there over a century, I hate to be terribly pedantic, but they're there, they're africans and they do have these teensy weensy little things called rights which might affect your attitude. Unless of course Zimbabwe wants to pay for them to be re-housed in their country of origin...
Quote:
Introduction of the nation-state system, and after many years of functioning, when somebody wants to give the land back to the rightful owners, problems rise.
That entirely depends on the notion of "rightful" which is all to often linked to legal. Legally, the land is (but increasingly was) owned by the white people. Morally it's anyone's guess.
Quote:
You say, that white families who have lived on that property since they were born have full right over the land. But what shall we do with the injustice brought upon those who had lived on that land for centuries before the Europeans came?
There's pleanty of land in the country for one thing. Mugabe is rabble rousing and bringing up support by raising the issue of anti-white racism in the country. He's not compensating the white farmers, he's not even doing it peacefully, he's sending ex-soldiers to kill rape and beat up the farmers and their families before they finally leave out of sheer fear. I fail to see how that injustice can somehow be good simply because on the surface the land is returned to black people and seems all very nicely done. What PM is talking about is legal, what happens in zimbabwe is a disgrace.
Quote:
You don’t care about their exploitation and lesser treatment by the nation-state government
Don't I? I'd like to see you prove that. I've not argued that they should be exploited or should have been under the empire. I have argued that it was not entirely a dreadful thing and that I personally should not have to pay the price for it. I have also argued that Mugabe is a maniac who's doing no justice whatsoever and a dictator. You don't solve explotiation in the past with a round of ethnic violence in the future in my experience.
Quote:
You may choose to criticize Mugabe’s actions, but his main point is clear and fair for me (the potential corrupted decisions left out).
Hmmm, so it's alright to drive people off their legally owned land and force them to leave their country without money or anywhere to live as long as it's in a good cause then is it? It's permissable to kill and wound people in the name of justice? The common person there is not getting land, it's Mugabe's thugs and soldiers, hardly the ideal of justice, turn out people living there peacefully using violence and replace them with cronies. I'm failing to see why that's justified.
I do btw think that a system whereby people such as the white farmers are compensated for their land and given incentives to sell and/or return to their native land is a good one. Inciting what, if done to a black population would probably be called ethnic cleansing is not however my idea of a good system of justice or return of land. PM was talking of legal methods, in any way shape or form, Mugabe's methods are about as legal as Enron's accounts
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Stormrage
Known Hero
Tucker is not a duck
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 12:38 PM |
|
|
This is just way too amusing........
Yay. Hatred...
____________
"Heed to my call, denizens of All poor countries! Viva la revolt!"
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 05:48 PM |
|
|
Svarog --
Yes, I do think the Fourth-World injustices continue. They are just poorly pressed for the most part. Here in the U.S. there are ongoing legal battles over abrogated treaties all over the place, and some victories involving land claims settlements, and some monetary compensation for lands stolen and not paid for as agreed in standing treaties.
Those are only examples of the good stuff. Such victories appear pretty hollow to more activist Indians who stand by the greater issues like sovereignty rights. There's plenty of bad stuff continuing.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has so badly mismanaged Indian trust accounts for so many decades that it has become routine to slap every newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior with a contempt-of-court citation for failing to fix the problem. Of course the problem is that all the records have been lost or deliberately destroyed so that the moneys are not being paid for oil and mineral royalties, grazing rights, land compensation and the like, debts that are a hundred years old and continue to accumulate to this day totalling billions of dollars (which is arguably one reason why American Indian economies are in such horrible shape -- these debts were relied upon to rebuild and were never paid in many cases.) Invariably the contempt citation against the Secretary of the Interior is reversed on appeal because (s)he of course had no control over the horrible mess created by predecessors decades ago.
The U.S. government has been passing continuingly invasive legislation affecting Indian Country that the Supreme Court continues to pay lip service to being "sovereign", and after over two hundred years my country cannot get its **** together to act with any degree of legal/jurisdictional consistency when it comes to Indian sovereignty.
But I will reiterate that there is a fourth-world standoff occurring globally, and this standoff continues to be the source of most of the military activity all over the world, as well as an enormous sourse of nonmilitary tensions between demographic groups drawn into territorial/national boundaries.
PH --
Good morning again my friend. I am about to engage in a rare moment when I truly disagree with you. But let it be known that I am jumping ahead to my post without fully reading all of those between you and Svarog, only because I have an urgent thought that I feel I might forget. So please be patient with my hastiness if I'm off point here.
It seems to me that a solid grasp on neo-liberalism is absolutely critical to an understanding of the issue you gentlemen are fighting about now. Thatcher and Reagan are largely at the bottom of it, and it has probably caused more global misery in the third-world, and more resentment toward the West (for which the point countries have always been yours and mine) than practically anthing else save our historical tendency to use military muscle and be omnipresent as we do.
The methods of the IMF and World Bank have further allowed neo-liberalism to become more a vehicle of cultural export for the West than any kind of "liberating" economic force as was the original pretense. I think this may be the point Savarog is after here.
Again, please forgive my jumping in here. But a detailed dialogue on neoliberalism must take place here before the hatred of America (as a symbol for the Western World in general) is truly understood.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 21, 2004 08:37 PM |
|
|
LoL Peacemaker Painted A Target On Her Post For PrivateHudson
Quote:
Peacemaker
Quote:
prepare
Quote:
to get
Quote:
tossed
Quote:
by PrivateHudson
Quote:
LoL
Disagreeing with him = tossed like a ragdoll
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 09:28 PM |
|
|
Thanks for that analysis there Consis However since I'm not that familiar with what she's referring to I prefer not to comment on it
PS There's a basic difference between this ridiculous "tossing" that appears in this forum and having a debate 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 09:35 PM |
|
|
ROFL @ consis
PH is correct though, he couldnt toss even if his debate club was at stake
He just keeps arguing against himself (meaning: he argues what he wants you to say instead of actually reading whay you say) by taking half quotes out of its context all the time.
but hey..welcome to the club consis..sooner or later you will learn that you can make one post disagreeing with PH and then he can go on and on for himself debating what he thinks and what he thinks you think...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 21, 2004 10:22 PM |
|
|
Nice to see you're still stuck in the same mindset as always stiven. I however have moved on a little, so unless you've got some point on the topic, it would seem that your reason for being here is to drag up old arguments that no longer have any point. Go play with someone else After this post I have nothing to say on your personal comments.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 22, 2004 12:50 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 21 Mar 2004
|
Quote:
Tell me the point of repeatedly commenting that my government is doing things wrong by it's nature, I can't change that now can I?
Good gracious! Does this mean that the formidable warrior PH is on the verge of agreeing?! You asked about the point. Not having to argue with me and others just for the sake of arguing, even though you don’t mean that. How does that sound? (Music for your ears. Lol.)
Quote:
Because I happen to think it's a damned sight better than communism or far left socialist economic systems. I don't like it, but I've seen a few alternatives, and I dislike them a lot more. Like democracy, far from perfect, but better than the forms of communism we tried.
Now this is a completely new area, which opens a completely another discussion. (for which I encourage you to participate in the other threads) But claiming that capitalism is perfect, because you think it’s the least bad of them all, won’t get you anywhere.
And as a side note: democracy is not in contrary with socialism and communism.
"All we have to do is change governments and the rest will fall into place right?"
Well yeah. In theory. But it’s the majority that decides, which is not always the best and smartest decision.
"Not only does it have no effect since half the time I already know and still can't do anything, the rest of the time it sounds like you're accusing the person instead."
Sorry you got that impression. But as I said, it’s your problem that you identified with your government. I didn’t mention PH not once as the bad guy. You might not belong to the majority that elected your government, but even if you do – that doesn’t mean you agree 100% with them. In fact, never do that.
Quote:
I pay taxes to support them because they're in my country, contributed to my country, fought for my country in many cases and lastly, it pays towards supporting my own pension when I reach that age.
Sounds a bit nationalistic to me. What applies for your countrymen, doesn’t apply for others. You, as acitizen, have rights and responsibilities. And one of them is to respect and pay taxes, for the agreements and treaties your country have reached. In International Law, countries may be held responsible for atrocities, i.e. are considered to be legal subjects. That means you are obliged to agree with your country paying compensation for any crimes it may have done in the past. Generations are not a factor here.
But since International Law doesn’t have jurisdiction over any of these distant crimes we are talking about, due to its late emergence, we can only argue about the moral basis for compensations, not legal one. And the moral basis certainly exists, because it is the “root and basis for International Law” also. In short, countries can be held responsible, they can be demanded to compensate in some way, and countries’ nationals can be obliged to respect that. Morally and ethically.
"Not logic at all, governments and agreements can and do change."
Of course they do, but only if both parties agree. Changing agreements unilaterally, as you suggest, is considered a breach of international law. A different thing entirely that there’s no one to enforce it. But if such is the case, it’s always immoral and unfair.
"That entirely depends on the notion of "rightful" which is all to often linked to legal."
Oh no! “Legal” does not equal “rightful”, especially in the past. And in the past, that land was legally given to white people, but not rightfully.
"What PM is talking about is legal, what happens in Zimbabwe is a disgrace."
And just what was she talking about?! The “legal way” through which European Explorers gained land in America, right?
Well now, newsflash!!! According to the law in Zimbabwe, what is happening now is also legal.
About Zimbabwe. You (British medias?) are making it all look like the whites there are victims, and Mugabe is the ruthless aggressor. May I remind you that Mugabe has the full support of his people. And that we are not talking about poor “white farmers” here, but big landowners who now posses the bulk of the land.
I too disapprove the possible injustices going on, but the policy of giving back the land is a good and noble one.
Quote:
I do btw think that a system whereby people such as the white farmers are compensated for their land and given incentives to sell and/or return to their native land is a good one.
Now, have in mind that if Zimbabwe compensates for the entire land white owners posses, then she’ll bankrupt. I believe they should divide the land to villagers, and leave biggish parts for the white owners to cultivate. No compensations of other kind.
=> Peacemaker, your post was a revelation. I didn’t know there was “Indian Country”, and even more, with a sovereignty of its own; and the notion of “American Indian economy” also confused me. Interesting stuff. (And do you happen to live in this Indian Country, and what is it actually? *Hey, don’t get carried away. *)
And you still didn't answer my question about if you are OK with the present nation-state system in Europe, or are you a total "anti-nation-statist" if i ever saw one? 
Quote:
But I will reiterate that there is a fourth-world standoff occurring globally, and this standoff continues to be the source of most of the military activity all over the world.
Such as the case in Zimbabwe is.
"However since I'm not that familiar with what she's referring to I prefer not to comment on it."
Are you not? Noeliberalism, Forth World? That’s what you were arguing with me all the time, just without mentioning the names. But now that she wants to play along, you run off. Chicken!
"There's a basic difference between this ridiculous "tossing" that appears in this forum and having a debate."
Oh, excuse me. And who should I commend for trying so hard for that? 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 22, 2004 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sounds a bit nationalistic to me. What applies for your countrymen, doesn’t apply for others.
Nope, that's how direct taxation (ie taxes you pay knowing they go to a certain place or reason) works. Actually, it might not be called that, but I do. Pension taxation is for the people of the country, no-one else. If people wish to help other countries they donate to charity and volunteer. The two can't cross over.
Quote:
You, as acitizen, have rights and responsibilities. And one of them is to respect and pay taxes, for the agreements and treaties your country have reached. In International Law, countries may be held responsible for atrocities, i.e. are considered to be legal subjects. That means you are obliged to agree with your country paying compensation for any crimes it may have done in the past. Generations are not a factor here.
I disagree, we are obliged to pay what we democratically agree to pay and will put up with, that's part of the system. Again you use the term international law without really accepting that agreements are not to last forever in an imperfect world. If one government agreed to hand Northern Ireland over to Ireland against the democratic vote for example, would you automatically say that the next had no right whatsoever to reverse the choice, even if it was democratic to do so? International law is going to have a hard time proving that atrocities done X hundred years ago can be compensated for now. What you suggest will open flood gates for a multitude of claims and chaos.
Quote:
But since International Law doesn’t have jurisdiction over any of these distant crimes we are talking about, due to its late emergence, we can only argue about the moral basis for compensations, not legal one
And we can argue on a practical one and moral basis against the compensation theory.
Quote:
In short, countries can be held responsible, they can be demanded to compensate in some way, and countries’ nationals can be obliged to respect that. Morally and ethically.
You'll never make that stick. Countries are sovereign nations also, and have a tendency to refuse demands that they would not enforce otherwise. Given the extensive nature of the potential fallout of such compensations I doubt you'd find a major country willing to find its economy damaged through supporting the issue too far.
Quote:
Of course they do, but only if both parties agree.
In perfect world (TM naturally ) perhaps, but in the real world this is not the case. Again I'll use spain as an example, the US is not agreeing to her pulling out of Iraq, she's going to do it anyway, agreement broken. There's one example of many.
Quote:
Of course they do, but only if both parties agree. Changing agreements unilaterally, as you suggest, is considered a breach of international law. A different thing entirely that there’s no one to enforce it. But if such is the case, it’s always immoral and unfair.
Hmm, I'd say there's reasons agreements might change, if they're undemocratic, if they make no sense, if they damage the country to no end etc.
Quote:
Oh no! “Legal” does not equal “rightful”, especially in the past. And in the past, that land was legally given to white people, but not rightfully.
And now it is being illegally given to the unrightful owners. Hardly a good thing to me.
Quote:
Well now, newsflash!!! According to the law in Zimbabwe, what is happening now is also legal.
So Mugabe has made enforced, violent occupation of land legal now has he? I never argued against some resettlment, however the methods I do argue against, they're appalling.
Quote:
About Zimbabwe. You (British medias?) are making it all look like the whites there are victims, and Mugabe is the ruthless aggressor.
Which could be because he's a ruthless dictator perhaps? Who btw has invaded a number of neighbours in his time? Does someone deserve to be forefully removed from their land? Then they are victims.
Quote:
May I remind you that Mugabe has the full support of his people
Might I remind you that he has been a dictator and rules through a combination of fear and stirring up racism? Of course throwing white farmers off land is popular, hardly rocket science is it? The question is more is it proper in method.
Quote:
And that we are not talking about poor “white farmers” here, but big landowners who now posses the bulk of the land.
But are not allowed to return to Britain with any of this. Many are forced to live off relatives as they do not count as British or asylum seekers and had no money to do anything else.
Quote:
Are you not? Noeliberalism, Forth World? That’s what you were arguing with me all the time, just without mentioning the names. But now that she wants to play along, you run off. Chicken!
I consider what she says beyond my knowledge level to debate about, more importantly, I consider it outside my level of interest. I prefer other topics, so rather than being dragged further into this one I choose not to
Quote:
Oh, excuse me. And who should I commend for trying so hard for that?
I honestly can say I have no clue what you mean here sorry.
Quote:
You asked about the point. Not having to argue with me and others just for the sake of arguing, even though you don’t mean that. How does that sound? (Music for your ears. Lol.)
Or here. So for the sake of not misunderstanding you, I have left it for now. Sorry about that
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 22, 2004 04:27 AM |
|
|
Definitions
Tangent:
(Adjective)
1. that touches; touching
2. touching and not intersecting a curve or curved surface at one and only one point: said of a line or plane
(Noun)
1.-->a) a tangent line, curve, or surface
--->b) the length of a straight line tangent to a curve, measured from the point of the tangency to the intersection of the tangent line with the x-axis
2. Trigonometry the reciprocal of the cotangent;
-->a) the ratio of the opposite side of a given acute angle in a right traingle to the adjacent side
-->b) an equivalent, positive or negative ratio for certain related angles or real number representing radians
3. to break off suddenly from a line of action or train of thought and persue another course.
Question: Which definition are you?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 22, 2004 08:51 AM |
|
|
If you have a comment to say, then say it clearly consis.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 22, 2004 04:44 PM |
|
|
My Opinion Of The Debate Direction
I'm simply trying to say that I think the debate direction has become a bit off topic. I would like to know how all of this fits into "Why The Hatred"? What is the relation? I'm not saying it isn't there. I'm simply saying I don't see the connection so I'm asking for some enlightenment on the matter.
That's all.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 22, 2004 04:50 PM |
|
|
|
Forgive me for butting in here, but trade is probably one of the grittier details of the global resentment toward the West in general. As I suggested earlier, the US and Great Britain are the point nations for the West, particularly with respect to international trade agreements/sanctions/controls. So maybe it's not so far off topic. Perhaps a bit.
|
| |
|
|
