Should the UK leave the European Union?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ormond:
If we were going to invade anywhere right now it should be Syria, because that's where the most carnage is underway. It wouldn't make sense to invade Egypt now when Syria is almost right next door and experiencing far more violence. For now, we should talk to the Egyptian government, but not send them money. Let their fellow despots the Saudis foot that bill.
So you really are sticking to this idea that the world cleanly divides into despots and democrats with nothing in between? And if it wasn't for the fact that there's a war going on in Syria we should be invading Egypt?!?

Wow.
We should fight every despot in the world where we can. We should pick them off one by one where the opportunity presents itself.
Thankfully, we don't do that because we don't see the world in such black and white terms. We deal with individual behaviours individually and we recognize that there are reasons why regimes act as they do (note: don't mistake the word "reason" for the word "excuse"). Obviously, even if Syria was peaceful it would be insane to invade Egypt. We know from its recent history pretty well why Egypt's present government is as it is ...

blah, blah, bhah.

Less yapping; more attacking.

Tomorrow, we march on Cairo!!
Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Grunth »

Supine wrote:Grunth, had Hilary been working in the private sector and broke security protocol repeatedly for the corporation she was working for, I'm pretty sure she would have stood a good chance at getting fired. If she wasn't fired it might adversely affect the amount of time it would take for her to get promoted up the company ladder. It's interesting she'll likely become US President, or to put it another way get promoted up the Government ladder. :lol: I had to stand as an observer in a court martial in the Marine Corps for a fellow Corporal being tried for lying over opening a gate late, over posting a sentry on time to open the gate (one of several at the small base). He was found guilty and the results wasn't a slowing of promotion but rather a demotion. He lost a rank. And that was just over a gate that officers, enlisted, and civilians drove through. I think it was only opened 10 minutes late or something like that. :lol:

Although Hilary may not have done anything different than what Republicans in her position would or have done with emailed information. To my eyes each party lets slide what their own party members do and jump out of proportions at what members of the opposite party do even if its the exact same thing members of their party do.
Maybe, maybe not. It was a response to Lucylu: "but there is no use being negative and cynical about it".

Facts are negative? Facts are not negative for merely being facts, and facts are not negative if they lead to one being positive in their decision about how to vote.

And on MY apparent 'cynicism'? I think these videos show who the cynical ones are. It would be quite difficult to be as cynical as, say, H Clinton or Barry Obama for endorsing Clinton (We should just call her a CLiNT).
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Ormond »

So you really are sticking to this idea that the world cleanly divides into despots and democrats with nothing in between?
I never said that, it's you that keeps saying it. It's the standard argument by exaggeration technique you keep going to from time to time. To make you happy, let's set aside the in between cases for now, and focus on those who are indisputably despots. We can't tackle them all at once anyway, so we can start with the most extreme cases, where that is possible.

But of course this won't make you happy either, because your goal is to waffle this to death so we can preserve the status quo and not have to do anything at all. That's the Iraq war whiner position, do nothing for nobody, while pretending to be above it all and morally superior to everybody.
And if it wasn't for the fact that there's a war going on in Syria we should be invading Egypt?!?
Only a few posts back you said the following about Sisi...
I'd like to see him publicly tortured to death. (There's that Nazi in me coming out again.) And I wouldn't care whether that caused more trouble in the wider world than it solved in my neighbourhood.
Given that you are now arguing with yourself, you've left me little to do.
Thankfully, we don't do that because we don't see the world in such black and white terms. We deal with individual behaviours individually and we recognize that there are reasons why regimes act as they do (note: don't mistake the word "reason" for the word "excuse"). Obviously, even if Syria was peaceful it would be insane to invade Egypt. We know from its recent history pretty well why Egypt's present government is as it is ...
Waffle, waffle, waffle, leaping from foot to foot, never landing anywhere, attempting to own all sides of every position, and trying to pass this off as a sophisticated analysis.

You're confusing complexity with clarity Steve. You think the more complex you can make it the better job you are doing. A detailed oriented code nerd mindset perhaps?

And so I have to keep reminding you that if any of these despots were doing their thing in YOUR neighborhood it would not be complex, it would be very simple. You would pick up the phone, call the good guys with the guns, and tell them to come quickly and do their thing.

But when we move from the local to the global, you get all confused. In your defense this is very normal. And that's what makes it easy for me here, we've seen this confusion a million times already.

-- Updated July 15th, 2016, 7:04 am to add the following --
Picking them off one by one would mean, I take it, that we would be perpetually at war.
The struggle to bring civilization to planet Earth has been going on a long time already. Depending on how one wants to do the counting, it's been going on hundreds, or even thousands of years (ancient Greek democracy).

It's going to keep going on, long past our lifetimes, whether you like it or not. Despotic regimes are inherently unstable so until they are gone they will always be creating problems that will have to be dealt with.

Please recall that we've had some big successes already. America, Europe, India, most of South America, parts of Africa and Asia. All the struggle against despots which has already occurred has paid huge dividends for a couple billion people. But the job isn't done yet.
Because we'll never run out of nasty dictators.
We've already run out of nasty dictators in all the places I've listed above.
And we will have to keep troops in each country to make sure it doesn't regress. Except, what if a nation, through free elections, chooses a military strongman to lead them, and he becomes another in an unending line of nasty dictators, with oppression of the opposition. The trouble with your approach, Ormond, is that we would never be at peace, our military expenditures would skyrocket, we'd have to double our armed forces, and half the time the result wouldn't be much better than what we were trying to fix. Once again, you're an ideologue with good intentions but completely unrealistic and incredibly expensive ideas.
If Churchill and Roosevelt had felt this way, you'd have a Nazi flag hanging in your living room right now. What you're doing Wilson is taking the freedoms you have for granted, and not appreciating that you got those freedoms by the very process I am describing, fighting for them.

-- Updated July 15th, 2016, 8:08 am to add the following --

Here's an example that may help.

In the typical city there is usually the rich side of town, and the poor side of town.
The rich people buy a sewage treatment system for the poor people because the rich people understand that disease does not respect human borders. It's not charity so much as enlightened self interest.

Syria serves as a perfect example of this phenomena in the "global village". The Syrian civil war disease likewise does not respect borders, and is radiating out in all directions. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are the first to become infected. Then other neighboring states are sucked in to epidemic. Then global powers are sucked in. Then Europe is rocked to it's foundations by the refugee flow and the existence of the EU is threatened. And the story is not over yet, who knows what is next.

We are the rich people in this story, and we have declined to install a sewage treatment system in this poor neighborhood. We want to walk away and forget about this diseased place. But it's not working, because if we don't go to the epidemic, what the evidence provided by Syria clearly show is... The epidemic will come to us.

We can think of the Syrian civil war like we would an ebola outbreak. In both cases the wise choice is to rush to the scene of the disease outbreak asap and stamp it out before it grows too large to handle. The unwise choice is to stand on the sidelines while ebola explodes saying things like, "on the one hand vs. on the other hand."
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ormond:
I never said that, it's you that keeps saying it. It's the standard argument by exaggeration technique you keep going to from time to time.
Jeez, you accuse me of exaggeration in every single post at least three times and never, ever say anything else.
To make you happy, let's set aside the in between cases for now, and focus on those who are indisputably despots. We can't tackle them all at once anyway, so we can start with the most extreme cases, where that is possible.
I'm not interested in who we label a despot and who we don't. I'm only interested in what actions are required to get results.
But of course this won't make you happy either, because your goal is to waffle this to death so we can preserve the status quo and not have to do anything at all.
Is that my goal? Ok thanks.
That's the Iraq war whiner position, do nothing for nobody, while pretending to be above it all and morally superior to everybody.
You seem to have a bit of an obsession with what you perceive as either moral high-horsery or intellectual pretension. Why not just deal with what people actually say rather than your imagination about why they've said it?
Only a few posts back you said the following about Sisi...

"I'd like to see him publicly tortured to death. (There's that Nazi in me coming out again.) And I wouldn't care whether that caused more trouble in the wider world than it solved in my neighbourhood."


Given that you are now arguing with yourself, you've left me little to do.
I presume you're aware of the context that you missed out in that quote.

You don't seem to grasp the basic principle that it's not possible to form a global policy by imagining that you personally, simultaneously live in every neighbourhood on Earth.
Waffle, waffle, waffle, leaping from foot to foot, never landing anywhere, attempting to own all sides of every position, and trying to pass this off as a sophisticated analysis.
You apply the "waffle waffle waffle" defence randomly whenever you've got nothing else to say. It's a really stupid technique. If you keep doing it there's not much point. Let me know if you're going to, so I can give up.
You're confusing complexity with clarity Steve. You think the more complex you can make it the better job you are doing. A detailed oriented code nerd mindset perhaps?
Is that really what I think? Well I never. Thanks for letting me know.
And so I have to keep reminding you that if any of these despots were doing their thing in YOUR neighborhood it would not be complex, it would be very simple. You would pick up the phone, call the good guys with the guns, and tell them to come quickly and do their thing.
And I have to keep reminding you that you can't create a foreign policy by imagining that you live in every neighbourhood. Would you be able to create a policy affecting the lives of millions of people based on the idea that the life of every person on Earth is as precious to you as the lives of your own children? No. Of course not, because whatever decisions you take, people will die.
But when we move from the local to the global, you get all confused. In your defense this is very normal. And that's what makes it easy for me here, we've seen this confusion a million times already.
When we move from the local to the global I recognise the obvious common sense truth that almost everybody in the world, except you, seems to see: You can't please all of the people all of the time. Politics is about choosing among options, all of which are bad to varying degrees.

-- Updated Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:44 pm to add the following --
Here's an example that may help.

In the typical city there is usually the rich side of town, and the poor side of town.
The rich people buy a sewage treatment system for the poor people because the rich people understand that disease does not respect human borders. It's not charity so much as enlightened self interest.

Syria serves as a perfect example of this phenomena in the "global village". The Syrian civil war disease likewise does not respect borders, and is radiating out in all directions. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are the first to become infected. Then other neighboring states are sucked in to epidemic. Then global powers are sucked in. Then Europe is rocked to it's foundations by the refugee flow and the existence of the EU is threatened. And the story is not over yet, who knows what is next.

We are the rich people in this story, and we have declined to install a sewage treatment system in this poor neighborhood. We want to walk away and forget about this diseased place. But it's not working, because if we don't go to the epidemic, what the evidence provided by Syria clearly show is... The epidemic will come to us.

We can think of the Syrian civil war like we would an ebola outbreak. In both cases the wise choice is to rush to the scene of the disease outbreak asap and stamp it out before it grows too large to handle. The unwise choice is to stand on the sidelines while ebola explodes saying things like, "on the one hand vs. on the other hand."
Waffle waffle waffle.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Belinda »

Ormond wrote:


A
nd so I have to keep reminding you that if any of these despots were doing their thing in YOUR neighborhood it would not be complex, it would be very simple. You would pick up the phone, call the good guys with the guns, and tell them to come quickly and do their thing.

But when we move from the local to the global, you get all confused. In your defense this is very normal. And that's what makes it easy for me here, we've seen this confusion a million times already.
The good guys with the guns are concerned to save innocent lives in your neighbourhood and to this end they will try several strategies to save lives. One of those strategies is talking and bargaining with the bad guy, to save innocent lives. To talk and bargain effectively with the bad guy the police have to have as much knowledge as they can about the bad guy's psychology, his demands and how to satisfy them, who might be able to influence him, the terrain or layout of the street and building, and so on. The good policemen will perhaps have to sacrifice some victims to save other or all the victims. I think you may have an inadequate view of what intelligent neighbourhood policing involves, Ormond.

When interethnic and international differences between a given set of policemen enter the calculations of which strategy to use , the policemen have yet more complexities involved in how to save innocent lives.

All this regards how to diffuse a bad situation that arises. There is also the important strategy of how to prevent crime whenever possible. Apart from very expensive deterrents such as huge prisons or concentration camps, the complexities are far ranging, and are also what Wilson has called "glacially slow". All this cannot be solved alone by police marksmen however skilled they be.

I have, as I said to you earlier, Ormond, taken on board your illustration of the basic ethic , that good people dont sit around while innocents suffer. I doubt if anyone here disputes the basic ethic or how you illustrated it. If international and interethnic violence were as simple as a story starring John Wayne on his horse and wearing the sherriff's star of office then we would know the best strategy would be much as you describe.
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Steve3007 »

We now have another example to consider. Turkey.

As with Egypt (but not as brutal) we have a country that is ostensibly a democracy but which, under Erdoğan, has a tendency to suppress free speech and is in some danger of sliding towards dictatorship. Clearly, given the strategic position of Turkey and its membership of NATO, last night's (now failed) coup is not in our interests. It is in our interests to support Erdoğan's government, imperfect as it is, for the sake of stability, and use various diplomatic and economic means to encourage movement towards greater democracy.

Question: When the uprisings first began in Syria in 2011, should we have cooperated with Russia in helping the Assad regime to stabalize the country? I propose that a stable Syria, under the Assad regime, but with the rule of law (as opposed to anarchy) is the best of all the various bad choices. Likewise with Egypt. Likewise with Turkey.

-- Updated Sat Jul 16, 2016 10:00 am to add the following --

In the "democracy index", which, according Wikipedia is published by an organization called the Economist Intelligence Unit, Turkey comes in at number 97. way above Egypt (137) and obviously way above Syria (166), but clearly a bit lower than the countries that we traditionally think of as the "homes" of democracy, which are all in the 20's and 30's. Small countries like Norway, Iceland and New Zealand score very high. Presumably partly because it's easier to be more democratic with a small, cohesive population.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Ormond »

I think you may have an inadequate view of what intelligent neighbourhood policing involves, Ormond.
I spent two years of my life as an almost full time political activist for crime victim issues, so I'm guessing I could know more than I do, but that I already know more than you.

No where have I said the police, or armies, should always charge in shooting wildly in every direction. All I've said is that when you dial the emergency number about a crisis in your neighborhood you expect, that is, you demand, that the good guys with guns show up and do something to resolve the situation. That's all I'm suggesting on the global stage as well.

If we can agree that somebody should do something, the very same thing you expect and demand in your own neighborhood, then we can have a meaningful conversation about what should be done. If somebody suggests an invasion and you have a better plan to resolve the situation, put it on the table.

But that's typically not what happens with the Iraq war critic types. They like to get all hysterical and morally superior about the invasion, and then they typically offer no alternative other than walking away. They call this peace, but really it is just peace for us. Translation:
Iraq war critics wrote:"Don't bother us with the problems of these imprisoned third world people, we don't want to hear about it, we don't want to be bothered. We like the status quo, where we're rich and free, and the imprisoned poor people are out of sight and out of mind."
I have, as I said to you earlier, Ormond, taken on board your illustration of the basic ethic , that good people dont sit around while innocents suffer. I doubt if anyone here disputes the basic ethic or how you illustrated it. If international and interethnic violence were as simple as a story starring John Wayne on his horse and wearing the sherriff's star of office then we would know the best strategy would be much as you describe.
Blah, blah, blah. See? This is what critics are really interested in. These fantasy sophistication poses, and the fantasy morally superior poses. You are the intelligent sophisticated intellectual, and I am John Wayne etc etc.

Yes, I have evidence.

Before the Iraq war the critics had little to nothing to say about the Iraqi people. During the Iraq war they claimed to be so very very concerned about the Iraqi people. After the Iraq war the critics went back to showing little to no interest in the Iraq people.

Point being, they were never interested in the Iraqi people at any time. They were only interested in the subject so long as it could be used to score ego and partisan political points within their own societies, ie. blood for oil, Bush and Blair are war criminals etc etc.

-- Updated July 17th, 2016, 8:10 am to add the following --

[quote="Steve3007" I propose that a stable Syria, under the Assad regime, but with the rule of law (as opposed to anarchy) is the best of all the various bad choices. Likewise with Egypt. Likewise with Turkey.[/quote]

What should be abundantly clear by now is that the status quo where despots keep a lid on things is inherently unstable and destined to lead to crisis sooner or later. So by sticking with the status quo all you are doing is kicking the can down the road so it will be somebody else's problem to deal with.

I would agree we can't rush in to every problem case at once, and that this requires making choices, prioritizing the cases that are the most problematic and where we have the greatest opportunity to make a difference. So we might set Egypt and Turkey aside and focus on Syria.

The Syrian civil war has been grinding on for five years now, and it will keep grinding on so long as the opposing forces are relatively balanced. Remember, the Lebanese civil war went on for 15 years.

The only way to end this is for one side or the other to acquire overwhelming force they can use to finally defeat the other side. But what both we and the Russians and all the other parties are doing is tinkering around the edges, adding just enough force to add a little advantage here or there, but not enough to end the killing.

If Assad is the victor, then he will launch a wave of widespread terror and mass executions. The entire Syrian desert will become one huge mass grave. This will inevitably lead to another rebellion down the road, and the civil war will begin anew.

What should be clear to all from what has already happened is that the madness in Syria can not be contained within Syria's borders. The longer the madness goes on the farther it will spread. Neighboring states will be increasingly destabilized, the migrant crisis may collapse the EU and further fuel right wing parties, and the problem we so wanted to ignore will spread like an epidemic spawning all kinds of new problems. At the least, the Syrian civil war is a factory assembly line mass producing a new generation of psychopaths.

So that's what your choice of keeping the Assad status quo leads to. Not peace.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Belinda »

Ormond wrote:
What should be abundantly clear by now is that the status quo where despots keep a lid on things is inherently unstable and destined to lead to crisis sooner or later. So by sticking with the status quo all you are doing is kicking the can down the road so it will be somebody else's problem to deal with.

I would agree we can't rush in to every problem case at once, and that this requires making choices, prioritizing the cases that are the most problematic and where we have the greatest opportunity to make a difference. So we might set Egypt and Turkey aside and focus on Syria.

The Syrian civil war has been grinding on for five years now, and it will keep grinding on so long as the opposing forces are relatively balanced. Remember, the Lebanese civil war went on for 15 years.

The only way to end this is for one side or the other to acquire overwhelming force they can use to finally defeat the other side. But what both we and the Russians and all the other parties are doing is tinkering around the edges, adding just enough force to add a little advantage here or there, but not enough to end the killing.

If Assad is the victor, then he will launch a wave of widespread terror and mass executions. The entire Syrian desert will become one huge mass grave. This will inevitably lead to another rebellion down the road, and the civil war will begin anew.

What should be clear to all from what has already happened is that the madness in Syria can not be contained within Syria's borders. The longer the madness goes on the farther it will spread. Neighboring states will be increasingly destabilized, the migrant crisis may collapse the EU and further fuel right wing parties, and the problem we so wanted to ignore will spread like an epidemic spawning all kinds of new problems. At the least, the Syrian civil war is a factory assembly line mass producing a new generation of psychopaths.

So that's what your choice of keeping the Assad status quo leads to. Not peace.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Thanks for your really lucid and definite statement, Ormond. I'm impressed by your point of view. I will have to leave it to Steve and others to analyse it (I hope that this will happen)as I am not really much of an intellectual let alone as experienced in crime issues as you are.

My son who is a cleverer thinker than I read some of your pieces and remarked that you seem to be a Republican.
Socialist
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Ormond »

Belinda wrote:My son who is a cleverer thinker than I read some of your pieces and remarked that you seem to be a Republican.
That's an understandable impression, but actually I'm a Bernie Sanders liberal on most subjects. I'm a Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson style Democrat. Those leaders showed compassion for the weak, a respect for human rights, and a steely resolution to confront and defeat the despots where ever they could. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, each of them rose to squarely meet the despot challenges of their time, while still being the leading liberals of the 20th century.

Starting with McGovern the Democrats lost their way on the despot issue for awhile, (thus your son's impression) but are now recovering it to a degree.

As example, Obama went after Al-Qaeda with considerably more ferocity than George Bush, relentlessly knocking off their leaders one by one by one, rendering them largely incapable of causing too much trouble. You haven't heard much about Al-Qaeda lately, and that's why, most of them are now dead thanks to Obama's determined resolve to kill them all.

A few months back Obama managed to nail the #2 guy at ISIS, the financial leader of ISIS, a great accomplishment.

Obama is an interesting leader for this discussion, because he rejects the invasion technique while still being a fierce warrior. He's just kind of quiet about it in a classy way, leaving many with the false impression he's a soft style Democrat.

But hey, even McGovern the hyper liberal flew bombers over Nazi Germany in the middle of the night. You go Mr. McGov!
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Grunth »

Ormond wrote:
Belinda wrote:My son who is a cleverer thinker than I read some of your pieces and remarked that you seem to be a Republican.
That's an understandable impression, but actually I'm a Bernie Sanders liberal on most subjects. I'm a Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson style Democrat. Those leaders showed compassion for the weak, a respect for human rights, and a steely resolution to confront and defeat the despots where ever they could. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, each of them rose to squarely meet the despot challenges of their time, while still being the leading liberals of the 20th century.

Starting with McGovern the Democrats lost their way on the despot issue for awhile, (thus your son's impression) but are now recovering it to a degree.

As example, Obama went after Al-Qaeda with considerably more ferocity than George Bush, relentlessly knocking off their leaders one by one by one, rendering them largely incapable of causing too much trouble. You haven't heard much about Al-Qaeda lately, and that's why, most of them are now dead thanks to Obama's determined resolve to kill them all.

A few months back Obama managed to nail the #2 guy at ISIS, the financial leader of ISIS, a great accomplishment.

Obama is an interesting leader for this discussion, because he rejects the invasion technique while still being a fierce warrior. He's just kind of quiet about it in a classy way, leaving many with the false impression he's a soft style Democrat.

But hey, even McGovern the hyper liberal flew bombers over Nazi Germany in the middle of the night. You go Mr. McGov!
So you bought the Obama cowboy narrative? Mind you, it was very well orchestrated.
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Lucylu »

Bonjour!
Ormond wrote:No where have I said the police, or armies, should always charge in shooting wildly in every direction. All I've said is that when you dial the emergency number about a crisis in your neighborhood you expect, that is, you demand, that the good guys with guns show up and do something to resolve the situation. That's all I'm suggesting on the global stage as well.
After the terrorist attack in France last week, I was left wondering what the outcome would have been if the same had happened in England. There were thankfully armed police on the scene who were ready and able to kill the driver relatively swiftly.
Ormond wrote:... if any of these despots were doing their thing in YOUR neighborhood it would not be complex, it would be very simple. You would pick up the phone, call the good guys with the guns, and tell them to come quickly and do their thing. But when we move from the local to the global, you get all confused. In your defense this is very normal. And that's what makes it easy for me here, we've seen this confusion a million times already.
It is very difficult and distressing, as it should be. But as you say, unfortunately, often we have to do things which are repulsive to us, in order to fulfill our ideals. To further your ebola/ Syria unrest analogy, I was thinking how amazing it is that in order to fulfill the human ideal of helping the sick and the lame, some people have to spend their whole working lives dealing with other people's bodily functions, something which is naturally repulsive. Likewise, there have to be trained killers, commissioned to murder people in the name of progress, if we are to fulfill our ideal of world peace and human rights for all. Thankfully we don't all have to be nurses or join the armed forces, but we do have to support them, I think.

As you said, invasion is nothing new, but it is relatively new that it be for purely altruistic reasons, or enlightened self-interest rather than coming with the prize of land and loot isn't it?

If we don't want land, are we really so sure that we don't expect anything in return now (other than easing our consciences)? Do we expect some deference to our will in future? Perhaps support if it came to war with China for example? Having friends in the Middle East would tip the scales in our favour. Just playing devil's advocate.

Mainly, I worry that all the children in Syria and its refugees will not be receiving proper education while war continues, and people may be more likely to turn to religion in times of stress. They may also be irrevocably emotionally scared from their experiences. Not a good combination. If I can paraphrase a speaker in the House of Lords the other day, regarding the Chilcot report, "a person who follows the lessons of history passionately without ideals is tiresome, a person who follows ideals passionately without knowledge of history, is dangerous". This can be applied to politicians and to extremists.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Belinda »

LucyLu wrote:
"a person who follows the lessons of history passionately without ideals is tiresome, a person who follows ideals passionately without knowledge of history, is dangerous". This can be applied to politicians and to extremists.
It also applies to a neighbourhood policeman, and to the more intelligent criminals.
Socialist
Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Grunth »

Belinda wrote:LucyLu wrote:
"a person who follows the lessons of history passionately without ideals is tiresome, a person who follows ideals passionately without knowledge of history, is dangerous". This can be applied to politicians and to extremists.
It also applies to a neighbourhood policeman, and to the more intelligent criminals.
In what way? Example?

-- Updated July 26th, 2016, 1:50 am to add the following --

Last year, 5,702 cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) were reported in England, the first year that medical professionals have been legally obliged to report cases that they come across.

The figures were collected from April 2015 to March 2016.

Most of those who whose FGM was recorded were immigrants who had the procedure performed abroad.

Over half of the cases of FGM were recorded in London.

But 43 girls who suffered FGM were born in the UK, while 18 had the procedure done in the country.

The British government estimates that the real figures are much higher. They say 170,000 women and girls living in the UK have undergone FGM and further estimate that 65,000 girls under the age of 13 are at risk.

Female genital mutilation has been illegal in the UK since 1985, but there has never been a conviction for performing the procedure. The government brought in regulations last year mandating that medical professionals in England and Wales record all instances that they encounter as part of a nationwide effort to eradicate the practice in the UK.

Last year, a report by the City University London and the women’s rights charity Equality Now found that FGM is present in every part of the UK.

-- Updated July 28th, 2016, 2:13 am to add the following --

England Allows Entry of Pakistani Extremists for Speaking Tour
The preachers supported an assassin of a liberal governor who spoke against blasphemy law. One was welcomed by the archbishop of Canterbury.

The Church of England's highest priest has welcomed an extremist Muslim cleric from Pakistan to discuss countering "the narrative of extremism and terrorism" as reported by the International Business Times.

Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman both were vocal supporters of Mumtaz Qadri, the man who murdered the liberal governor of the Punjab, Salman Taseer, in 2011 after Taseer dared to question Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Qadri was one of Taseer's bodyguards.

Qadri was executed this year by Pakistani authorities, but Islamist extremists led a national campaign in support of Qadri, calling him a martyr.

Between 15,000 and 100,000 people attended Qadri's funeral, shrieking slogans such as "Qadri, your blood will bring the revolution" and "The punishment for a blasphemer is beheading."

Fierce riots ensued in Pakistan for after Qadri’s execution.

Despite their support for the murderer, the two clerics were allowed entry into the UK for a seven-week preaching tour of mosques. Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest priest in the Church of England, which comprises some 80 million Christians worldwide.

"They supported and incited my father Salmaan Taseer's murder," Taseer's son, Shehryar, 30, said. "The UK government should deport them, and Pakistan should prosecute them for the incitement of violence under the terrorism act."

"I find it disrespectful that a man like this has been entertained by the archbishop. My family has been on the front lines when it comes to inter-faith harmony and these people disrespect anyone and everyone who speaks about religious harmony," he added.

The UK home secretary has the power to ban people from the UK if their presence is deemed to not be "conducive to the public good." Former home secretary and now prime minister, Theresa May, used these powers to ban controversial counter-jihad activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the country, as well as controversial Islamist preacher Zakir Naik.

-- Updated July 30th, 2016, 2:11 am to add the following --

Something is very wrong when our judges cannot judge the difference between our superior system to that of a barbaric one.



Amina al-Jeffrey was born in Swansea, UK, and taken at age 16 to Saudi Arabia by her father, who disapproved of her Western lifestyle.

Now 21, she is fighting a court battle in the High Court in London against her father to be allowed to return to the UK.

She alleges that her father, Mohammed al-Jeffrey, put "metal bars" on her bedroom and described being a "locked-up girl with a shaved head."

Still a judge in the High Court, Justice Holman, has asserted, "We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy our cultural standards."

Holman also said that it is unclear whether or not Britain had jurisdiction in the matter since al-Jeffrey was an adult with dual Saudi and UK citizenship.

Al-Jeffrey said her father hit her, deprived her of water and forced her to urinate in a cup.

Although "metal bars are no longer in her room" according to her lawyers, "she is still locked up in the house" and "not allowed to use the phone or internet."

"Steps need to be taken to ensure Ms. Jeffery is returned to the UK where her safety can be guaranteed," the Foreign Office Forced Marriage Unit said in a statement.

"Her treatment has extended to depriving her of food and water, depriving her of toilet facilities, physical assault and control of her ability to marry who she wishes and creating a situation in which she feels compelled to marry as a means of escape," Henry Setright, a lawyer acting on behalf of al-Jeffrey said in a statement.

He described the situation as a "fundamental breach of human rights."

Saudi Arabia does not recognize al-Jeffrey's British citizenship. They are also paying for her father's legal fees.

"Regarding returning Amina back to the UK, I am unwilling to do this as I fear she will go back to her old destructive lifestyle," her father said in a letter submitted to the court.

"As her father, I fear for her health and safety and only want what is best for Amina, so she may focus on her education."

"She is a normal Welsh girl and still has her Welsh accent," said Anne-Marie Hutchinson, from the Academy of Family Lawyers who is representing al-Jeffrey.

“She wants to return home so she can have control of her own life and make her own choices.”
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Togo1 »

Ormond wrote:All I've said is that when you dial the emergency number about a crisis in your neighborhood you expect, that is, you demand, that the good guys with guns show up and do something to resolve the situation.
Um.. When people talk about John Wayne fantasies, or cowboy fantasies, this is what they're talking about.
Ormond wrote:That's all I'm suggesting on the global stage as well.

Does it work in real life? Because US policing is seen as a model to avoid, not follow. This may be linked to the tendency in the US for the police to shoot the person who called them.
Ormond wrote:If we can agree that somebody should do something, the very same thing you expect and demand in your own neighborhood, then we can have a meaningful conversation about what should be done.
I'm fairly sure no one has ever called up to demand that air strikes be called in on their neighbourhood.
Ormond wrote:But that's typically not what happens with the Iraq war critic types. Yes, I have evidence.

Before the Iraq war the critics had little to nothing to say about the Iraqi people. During the Iraq war they claimed to be so very very concerned about the Iraqi people. After the Iraq war the critics went back to showing little to no interest in the Iraq people.
Ok, so a couple of points:

1) A belief about a group of people is not 'evidence'. Evidence is something you can see. What you have is an opinion
2) I was saying quite a lot about the Iraqi people in the years up to the Iraq war, around the weapons being sold to him by the US and by France, the proxy war with Iran that was started when the 'guys with guns' decided they wanted to sort out Iran's instrasient opposition to the US, and later around the sanctions regieme. As were many others. There were speeches in Parliament, articles in newspapers, and prime time TV coverage of the issue. Don't take my word for it. Just use the date filter, set to anything pre 2002, and see for youself.
Ormond wrote:What should be abundantly clear by now is that the status quo where despots keep a lid on things is inherently unstable and destined to lead to crisis sooner or later. So by sticking with the status quo all you are doing is kicking the can down the road so it will be somebody else's problem to deal with.
To be fair, an invasion doesn't actually solve anything either. People with guns can only shoot people, they rely on other actions and other people to actually improve anything. Shooting people isn't a plan, let alone a solution.
Ormond wrote:The only way to end this is for one side or the other to acquire overwhelming force they can use to finally defeat the other side. But what both we and the Russians and all the other parties are doing is tinkering around the edges, adding just enough force to add a little advantage here or there, but not enough to end the killing.
Well, no, what we're mainly doing is killing each other's partisans. So Russia is relying on Assad's forces gaining control, and is thus bombing the rebels, while we're counting on the rebels gaining control and thus bombing ISIS. And ISIS are counting on chaos in the region to promote recruitment and destroy faith in traditional secular governement, so attacking anyone who looks like they might establish control.
Ormond wrote:What should be clear to all from what has already happened is that the madness in Syria can not be contained within Syria's borders.
Well of course not, because it includes a US/Russian rivalry for control over the region, that's already located outside Syria's borders.

But it's ignorant to call it madness. Madness just means you don't understand why people are fighting, and is a convenient label for dimissing the locals as actors with their own values. There is no madness, no psychopathy, no illness there. People are fighting for what they consider to be good, honourable, idealistic reasons. Ourselves included.

Given that you're not a fan of Assad, can you reveal what your plan is for who is going to run the country? Not the US or their proxies - they have too much blood on their hands. ditto the Russians. Presumably you wouldn't favour a religious Caliphate. So what is your plan?

Note that 'go in and shoot everyone', is not a plan.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Belinda »

I believe that all parties including ISIS should have talks to come to an agreement about humanitarian relief corridors. ASAP
Socialist
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021