Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

I'm honestly rooting for the protesters here - I believe EVERYONE has a right to live and work without fear of a repressive government coming down on them.

There are videos prooving that these 'protesters' torture and lynch anyone, who even remotely supports Qaddafi. Shouldn't EVERYONE have right to support whoever he likes?
Radical Islam is not about freedom, its about forcing its agenda upon everyone. And if you happen to not like it - they will murder you in very painful way.

Really? You're actually surprised by atrocities in this context?
Guy, it's a militia with no actual leaders, the very fact that massacre and atrocities are not widespread is surprising, and an improvement over what happened under Kadhafi. Beside it's hardly a proof that al Quaida (/= radical Islam, saying that al Quaida is radical Islam is like saying that WBC are the radical Christian) is involved.

[Urist McDepravity]

although I'd like proof on the torture and lynch part

Sure, as I've said, videos are freely available.

Spoiler: Violence, torture, death. You have been warned (click to show/hide)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVukQDXuCSE

As for religion part, you can clearly hear 'allah akbar' and 'free libya!' scanting by the mob in this and other lynching videos. I didn't say these guys are al-quaida, they are your typical islamic fellows, introducing their favorite 'stoning' justice in the country.

the very fact that massacre and atrocities are not widespread is surprising

Actually we cannot know whether they are 'widespread' or not. All we know is what media tells us, and most of media is VERY biased in this conflict since the beginning. For example, they failed to mention that 'rebel' leaders are the ones who are responsible for atrocities during Qaddafi rule. Seriously, qaddafi's minister of justice and interior minister are suddenly 'good democratic' fellows? Hell, even Musa now somehow got shelter in UK?
I don't think believing someone like that ex-minister of justice is good idea. Until (if ever) independent UN commission inspects Libya and provides grounded report on death toll from both sides, we can only guess whats actually going on there.

[DJ]

Any people would form lynch mobs in these circumstances.

[Bauglir]

Shouldn't EVERYONE have right to support whoever he likes?

Actually, no.

Not every person's position is worthy of support.

Notable examples include Joseph Stalin.

A rather vital part of the democratic process is that everyone in it is elected by the will of the people and that they give up power willingly once their term has ended (which it must). Gaddafi is neither.

I think Monsieur Depravity is right.  Just because some like Stalin or Ghaddaffi offends Bauglirs (and mine for that matter) objective principles, doesnt remove the right for someone else to peacebly support him.  The very idea that someone can remove that right is in itself hilariously hipocritical based on the aforementioned reasons for doing so.

Ah, I must clarify!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My principles are hardly objective, and that's why I didn't use a political example. I probably should have provided an example to be clear; you don't have a right to support somebody who, say, claims that electricity is a magical health tonic and that therefore everybody ought to be forced to lick electrical outlets for their own good. You certainly are capable of doing so, regardless of what your rights are. But you shouldn't, and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to be punished for doing so (commensurate with the extent of your support, obviously; if all you did was say, "Hey, good idea" you should probably just be called an idiot and that's the extent of the punishment).

In a political sense, objective correctness is much, much harder to find. All I can say is that I believe Gadaffi shouldn't be supported, but I can't prove that in an objective sense and I don't believe I've done enough research to convincingly argue that supporting him should actually be a crime worth punishing. In fact, since all I currently have is a vague understanding of his policies born of skimming Wikipedia, I'm not even sure I could really argue for why he shouldn't be supported in the first place, just because I'm missing too much of the information.

Naturally, I didn't say all this in the first post I made because it takes so much longer to say and/or read. Hopefully that makes clear that my position is not a ridiculous "Only what I think can be allowed to be thought" sort of thing.

[Phmcw]

Concerning the post above I think it's a trick question. In Belgium and in France, you may be arrested for supporting Hitler, and you can get a fine, and/or other section when you call for racial or religious hatred.
That's a difficult choice.

However, the problem there is hardly a problem of opinion. When Kadhafi's force are attacking, arresting his supporter become a sensible move, and you may expect them to be lynched by a mob. Report on incident as the later exist but, while we have few information coming from Lybia, there seems to be few of them, so it doesn't look like an organised assassination campaign (unlike the one organised at this very moment by Kadhafi). So for, the moment, the military intervention keep my full support.

[Urist McDepravity]

However, the problem there is hardly a problem of opinion. When Kadhafi's force are attacking, arresting his supporter become a sensible move, and you may expect them to be lynched by a mob. Report on incident as the later exist but, while we have few information coming from Lybia, there seems to be few of them, so it doesn't look like an organised assassination campaign (unlike the one organised at this very moment by Kadhafi). So for, the moment, the military intervention keep my full support.

So if country is divided into 50%/50% groups, other one is allowed to genocide whole first one as long as genocide is done by mobs w/out direct order?
Somewhy I don't think this is what UN resolution intended. It says clearly about need to protect civvies, and Qaddafi supporters are qualified as such as well. Its impossible to enforce actual cease fire w/out introducing international peacekeepers and temporary international control in all rioting cities.
Supporting anti-qaddafi forces with weapons, instructors and air strikes just makes situation worse and raises death toll for all sides.

[Phmcw]

You are basically asking if war is justified, you know.

[Earthquake Damage]

Principles (we're talking ethics, yes?) are never objective.  Period.

you don't have a right to support somebody who, say, claims that electricity is a magical health tonic and that therefore everybody ought to be forced to lick electrical outlets for their own good. You certainly are capable of doing so, regardless of what your rights are. But you shouldn't, and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to be punished for doing so (commensurate with the extent of your support, obviously; if all you did was say, "Hey, good idea" you should probably just be called an idiot and that's the extent of the punishment).

I'm unconvinced.  On what grounds do I not have the right to support some asinine cause?  I'm not asking whether you find it respectable or ridiculous.  I am asking by what principle you've decided I have the right to support only those causes which meet your standards.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Bauglir:  thats twice now that you said that people dont have the right to support whomever they want peacebly, and should be punished if it doesnt follow your world belief system.  Wow.  I sure am glad your not in charge.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

    First you said:

Shouldn't EVERYONE have right to support whoever he likes?

Actually, no.

Not every person's position is worthy of support. For instance, if it's objectively incorrect. I'm not making an assertion on the specific positions here, but what you said is far too broad a statement.

then you said in your spoiler

(this is the spoilier - for some reason you cant have a spoiler in a spoilier - or maybe I just cant figure it out)My principles are hardly objective, and that's why I didn't use a political example. I probably should have provided an example to be clear; you don't have a right to support somebody who, say, claims that electricity is a magical health tonic and that therefore everybody ought to be forced to lick electrical outlets for their own good. You certainly are capable of doing so, regardless of what your rights are. But you shouldn't, and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to be punished for doing so (commensurate with the extent of your support, obviously; if all you did was say, "Hey, good idea" you should probably just be called an idiot and that's the extent of the punishment).

In a political sense, objective correctness is much, much harder to find. All I can say is that I believe Gadaffi shouldn't be supported, but I can't prove that in an objective sense and I don't believe I've done enough research to convincingly argue that supporting him should actually be a crime worth punishing. In fact, since all I currently have is a vague understanding of his policies born of skimming Wikipedia, I'm not even sure I could really argue for why he shouldn't be supported in the first place, just because I'm missing too much of the information.  (bauglirs spoiler ended here)
Naturally, I didn't say all this in the first post I made because it takes so much longer to say and/or read. Hopefully that makes clear that my position is not a ridiculous "Only what I think can be allowed to be thought" sort of thing.

rats ninj'd by earthquake, who of course, said it better.

[Phmcw]

Once again that : people can say whatever they want (as long at it is only an opinion) is purely American ; in most European country, there is such things as illegal opinion, such as racism, dangerous religious beliefs and a few other (the thing with electricity would be illegal I think). Personally, I think that while there is no objective truth, there is such things as objective bullshit. You don't have any right to say that black man are inferior, for instance ; that is pure, objective stupidity, and is rightly forbidden, in my opinion.

[Bauglir]

I never said I knew what was right in all cases, or that I was qualified to determine who should be punished for what. I believe that there are things that are wrong, not that I'm capable of discerning what all of them are. So in practice, our two beliefs work out to roughly the same principle of, "Let other people do what they decide." When I say that people don't have the right to support whoever they want, I am saying that they should expect the appropriate consequences for supporting people who don't deserve that support.

There may be a disconnect between our definitions. I'm referring to the same sort of "right" as people who declare that they have a right to do something, and therefore should be allowed to without any negative consequences. It's not the definition I tend to think in terms of, but it is the definition I tend to see associate with statements like the one I was responding to. I apologize if I was wrong about that.

Principles (we're talking ethics, yes?) are never objective.  Period.

Agreed. That is why I said mine aren't.

you don't have a right to support somebody who, say, claims that electricity is a magical health tonic and that therefore everybody ought to be forced to lick electrical outlets for their own good. You certainly are capable of doing so, regardless of what your rights are. But you shouldn't, and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to be punished for doing so (commensurate with the extent of your support, obviously; if all you did was say, "Hey, good idea" you should probably just be called an idiot and that's the extent of the punishment).

I'm unconvinced.  On what grounds do I not have the right to support some asinine cause?  I'm not asking whether you find it respectable or ridiculous.  I am asking by what principle you've decided I have the right to support only those causes which meet your standards.

My principle for this sort of thing is that, generally, somebody has a right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't objectively cause harm to somebody else (and if it does, you can still argue that there's some more important reason, but you actually do have to argue it). I was trying to pick an example in which there could be no question that it causes objective harm to others (which forced electrical-outlet-licking, in fact, does), and the justification was completely ridiculous.

It's the same basic principle as punishing people for being accessories to a crime, only it includes guidelines for negligible support (negligible punishments, which a legal system can't and shouldn't be bothered to hand out).

Does that make any more sense?

[Criptfeind]

Does that make any more sense?

Yeah. Also I certainly would not go as far as stopping people from self destructive behavior.

[Earthquake Damage]

There may be a disconnect between our definitions. I'm referring to the same sort of "right" as people who declare that they have a right to do something, and therefore should be allowed to without any negative consequences. It's not the definition I tend to think in terms of, but it is the definition I tend to see associate with statements like the one I was responding to. I apologize if I was wrong about that.

That sounds about right (no pun intended).

Once again that : people can say whatever they want (as long at it is only an opinion) is purely American ; in most European country, there is such things as illegal opinion, such as racism, dangerous religious beliefs and a few other (the thing with electricity would be illegal I think). Personally, I think that while there is no objective truth, there is such things as objective bullshit. You don't have any right to say that black man are inferior, for instance ; that is pure, objective stupidity, and is rightly forbidden, in my opinion.

In the US, we emphasize individual rights more than order/the collective good/whatever.  Combine that with some fear (not entirely unjustified) of the whole "officially sanctioned opinion" notion and you get the difference.  Something like that.

Also, define objective stupidity and objective bullshit.  I have a hard time interpreting those as anything but subjective.  Far too many people use "objective" to mean "supremely rational, therefore superior to all other viewpoints, because I said so" (*cough*), which approaches No True Scotsman territory.

[Sheb]

Actually, the coalition isn't keen on anti-Qaddafi guys killing civilians. I remember seeing an interview with the coalition leader saying they would bomb the shit out of them too if they attack civilians.

[PremierMeridian]

Actually, the coalition isn't keen on anti-Qaddafi guys killing civilians. I remember seeing an interview with the coalition leader saying they would bomb the shit out of them too if they attack civilians.

wow, do you have a source for that?

I'm all for the dissolution of the Gaddafi government, but what happens next? I certainly don't want fundamentalist islam getting involved. The last thing we need, as Britons in this recession, is another Iran giving Socialism a bad name.