Erdogan did nothing wrong m8, this is a very arbitrary line to draw. Actual terrorist attacks on civvies is "how democracy works" whilst citizens occupying an abandoned outpost is terrorism lol
Also Kurds are not Christians, they were not Ottoman'd
No. Terrorism=unacceptable. But that doesn't mean the rest of the people who want to be free shouldn't be allowed because that would be "giving into terrorism". What's more, maybe you
should be differentiating between people. I never said this was terrorism. I just said you can't put up with it, since it's a form of protest that I, at least, consider unacceptable. You know, armed and trying to create a military compound. This is why I was saying you can't just Noncentral Fallacy.
Everyone can play at that game, and then no one gets anywhere, and nothing useful gets done, no facts become revealed, no one is taught by the discussion. That's politicks, not debate. I come here to debate, not to politick.
Shit question, the people of Hong Kong have to abide by rules put in place by elected officials from a list of people they do not get to choose on the pretext that their interests do not matter in the face of the greater whole. Do you approve of obedience to rules put in place by elected officials even when the rules are unjust? What do you do when elected officials have the interest of others in mind then, and are bought by others? Still elected, will you still abide?
And the people of South Carolina have to abide by rules decided by a small council of appointed officials who preside over all major policy decisions and have essentially irrevocable veto power. That doesn't make the Supreme Court a tyrannical government. And maybe I simply don't know enough about Hong Kong, but from what I can tell it's largely separate from mainland China, and autonomous in a lot of ways. Which would seem like they get more self-rule via democracy than most of China. Perfect, no. Additionally, you are equating 'does not benefit them primarily' with 'unjust', which I hold to be a false equivalency, possibly because I use a different definition of just. I don't know. I do know that issues with elected officials hold true in a lot of places, and corruption is an issue separate from the one I thought/think we're discussing. I'm getting confused as to what the original point here was with all the other stuff layering over it.
USA in a nutshell
Whilst not untrue, occupying a federal building with weapons and declaring it a sovereign state seems a lot more like disproportionate response to your buddies still being in prison after burning down forest to cover their poaching. I mean, don't get me wrong, fearmongering bullshit is politician thing to do, but I think that's usually why people try and do Republics, to have a 'buffer zone'. Which is only as effective as their terms are long, really...
Ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state versus ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state. One is accused of treason and is bombed whilst fighting continues, another is accused of treason and calls are being made even itt to bomb them and I hope for happenings it does.
Right. Except that one is the discontent of people about their buddies being in prison for burning down federal lands, and the other is upset because of a history of violence and oppression against their ethnic group, and quite possibly family, village, and friends. These are not equivalent. Again. Noncentral fallacy. Both belong to the set 'making state to escape oppression'. They do not both belong to the set 'large numbers of people with similar desire in similar location, enough to actually create a state'. They do not both belong to the set 'under a government with a relatively recent history of genocide'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression type:victims of ethnic prejudice'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression level: able to occupy a federal building with weapons and not get blown up within 24 hours'.
M8
It's just discussion, amplify your relaxed states, I have no interest in proving anyone smarts or idiots. That is a futile endeavour and wins no one anything, I also do not really even distinguish between you and other people itt
I understand that you don't. I'm asking you to give the discussion the degree of seriousness it deserves. Which is to say, the same amount all debates do. Go in with rigor, bring up evidence, respect your debating partner. "Use as many words as needed m8, Erdogan did nothing wrong" is not actually sufficient words. I could see possible reasoning for it, but to actually be convincing, you have to articulate that argument. And considering your responses to some of the other questions, I know you're more than capable, and willing when it suits you, which is why it is so frustrating that you don't with the bigger questions. If you don't want to have a serious discussion in detail, that's fine, but say so. Don't just brush it off with lolspeak and one-liners. Give me an argument I can engage with, not one I have to look up first.
Doesn't matter, it's an answer to the rhetorical question; if a bunch of Mexicans armed themselves up and staked out a chunk of the USA in Cali and claimed secession due to mistreatment, how would you all be then? Legitimate protest, or terrorists?
I'd say it'd be legit but advise for heavy policing
Mexicans ethnically, or Mexicans as in citizens of Mexico? Because either way I would be having none of it, it's just the level of response that would differ. You wanna protest or secede? Fine, file the paperwork, make your case, blahblahblah. Trying to take a bunch of other people with you, more than want to secede, with your secession, through violence? No. Trying to do it to get attention, through threats of force, implied or otherwise? No. You work through the channels of civilization. It's the same reason I hate that mentality of 'If
everyone has guns, we'll be safe." Because that's worked out so very well in [fill in African/East European/Middle Eastern country in turmoil here]. Everyone with guns makes everyone twitchy, not polite.
Don't see anything left-wing about that action either. Heck, Obama says he's a spy not a patriot whilst Clinton says he's a traitor.
Except in my experience, support for Snowden at the grassroots level was overwhelmingly left-wing.
Or libertarians, who are right-wing and have boners for grassroot movements, the former RONPAUL crowd loved him. RussiaToday and Fox throwing their weight in to slag off America and democrats respectively also added in american conservatives to the mix alongside liberal democrat Guardian readers in the UK[/quote]
Libertarians are right-wing in American terms because they're pro-market, but they're liberal in the older sense of the word.
As far as I know, reactionary wants to go back hundred plus years, to before how things were in their younger days, even, while conservatives just want things to go back to being like 'the good old days'. I mean, ideally, progressives would push the country forward and conservatives would keep that progress in check to prevent stuff from getting out of hand, and that's almost what it's like now, except horribly distorted and twisted. Progressives should be the idealist party, and conservatives should be the practical party, and they should push against each other so that a balance between what is right and what is necessary can be struck.