 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Does that not represent a rather fundamental shift for you? |
No, not a fundamental shift in belief, just a shift in the application of belief to a consistent conclusion.
Note, though, that I don't think "callous indifference" should be legally punishable in MOST cases.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
David, were you against bombing of Serbia? |
Oh absolutely. To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
The problem is...voluntarily driven actions won't do anything to FIX or CHANGE the problem at hand. About all that accomplishes is that it allows you to say "There. I tried." And give yourself a nice pat on the back for "getting involved."
Will it stop the blood from flowing? Will DF's refusal to buy a Chinese-made VCR stop it from happening again?
Don't kid yourself.
The difference in the examples given is this:
If you intercede on behalf of an elderly lady who is being mugged, you are implicitly saying "I'd give my life for you," because you might. You don't just go waltzing into a situation like that wily nilly, my friend. In the blink of an eye, the stakes could change dramatically. The mugger robbing the old lady at knifepoint might not have needed to pull the .45 out from beneath his shirt for the old lady, but when you step up to the plate, you change the equation and the stakes. So...the mugger pulls his piece, and points it at your head. Whatchagonna do now? No time to think about it.....you only have half a second to make your choice, and if it's the wrong one, you're sporting a lovely, large-calibre hole in the back of your noggin.
So you'll use force to take him down, or you'll put your hands up like a good boy and let him carry on about his business. Either might get you killed.
Contrast that with not buying the VCR. Note the difference?
Once you commit yourself to involvement, you're in. If you back out half way thru then you a) lack the courage of your convictions, or b) weren't serious about your concern to begin with.
Hate to say it, but you can't run a country of 290million people on the basis of voluntary consent, involvement, and participation. That's why we ELECT representatives.
If your proposed course of action is any indication, you'd downright suck at brinkmanship....no offense. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
tiananmen wouldn't happen again, not like that. why?
24 hour news networks-- in 1989, there was CNN, and not much else... these days, in america alone we have three or four news networks, and several more throughout the western and east/northeast asian world.
internet-- even with the great firewall, it probably would be fairly easy to organize moving demonstrations and increasing support both nationally and internationally. i wouldn't be surprised if one saw more demonstrations not just in beijing, but in shanghai, etc.
public relations-- because of the first two things, any massacre or demonstration of brawn would result in a pr disaster for china; even if they did manage to clamp down on the news networks, and the internet, the silence would lead to many a question from the world at large, as well as creating severe economic repercussions.
economic fallout-- maybe no sanctions, officially. but boycotts, possibly, or exclusionary tactics... and i have a hard time believing some hackers would stand by and do nothing.
now, all of that specifically refers to china, a place we americans, even though it's exotic, and oriental, and what not, we like them.
if it was in some country like, say, togo, or uzbekistan, or tonga, or moldova, i don't think we'd give as much of a damn, unless there was some reason to go in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Id kill all the libertarians
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Master Floyd, please fix DRC first. Rwanda is an excellent second choice. |
I wasn't referring specifically to the PRC, but in general. If the leaders of DRC conducted a Tiananmen-like massacre, I'd support their assassination as well, although the DRC probably doesn't export anything worth boycotting. Well, they have diamond mines, right? That's besides the point, of course...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
yup, id go after all the libertarians
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
UR, that's nice. The bottom line is this: I support the assassination of murderers who are in power around the world, in order to protect the natural rights of the citizens in those countries. This applies to the DRC just as much as it does the PRC - the PRC is just one of the more flagrant examples in recent history.
However, I don't support using tax money for these assassinations, because I don't support taxes, and user-fees collected for other services can't properly be used for extra-territorial action, because it isn't providing a service to those who are paying for, say, the police.
Hence, if enough people want to support this policy, they will donate money for the express purpose of wiping out dictators from the DRC to the PRC, where practical.
Now, do I think this policy is particularly wise in every case? Certainly not. Extending the mugger analogy, I wouldn't go after a mugger if he had the means to not only kill me, but also my whole family. Likewise, I wouldn't go after the dictator of a country armed with a likely to use nuclear weapons to keep the dictatorship alive, nor would I assassinate a dictator of a country that could conventionally harm the US.
Of course, let's say I'd come to power in 1989. The PRC couldn't have done jack **** to the US conventionally at that time (and the same applies to today). The PRC could certainly have used ICBMs against the Western US - but not very many (even fewer when the US knocked out the Xia class sub), and only at the cost of total annihilation. Hence, I'm sure we can both agree that the PRC wouldn't have nuked San Francisco if the US popped Deng.
On the other hand, I wouldn't advocate trying to assassinate someone such as Brezhnev, who had both the means and probably the mindset to start a nuclear war.
So yes, this means I would go after those who were unable to stop me, and leave those alone would could harm me (me referring to the US). However, this is no different than anyone would do in the mugger situation - if the mugger had the means and mindset to kill you and your family if you stopped him from robbing an old lady, you probably wouldn't stop him. You wouldn't be committing an immoral act, nor would you be allowing an immoral act - you would simply not be intervening.
To sum up:
Go after any dictator who massacres people, provided:
1)People will voluntarily pay for it
2)The dictator can't harm the US or US citizens who haven't volunteered to go into harm's way in this SPECIFIC instance.
Is that somewhat coherent?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Seems monkie and I are the only pacifists left on the boards. |
I've never been a pacifist.
However, are you saying that if you saw someone hitting an old lady over the head in a dark alley, and you had a gun, you wouldn't try to stop the mugger?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003 03:04
), because current system (of lobbies, street demonstrations and rigged polls) is not good.
|