|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
To literally set out to kill 100 000 people seems like an unimaginable nightmare in paperwork for investigation and justice system. If you pass those as it seems to be happening, you'll probably end up with a lot of false positives.
Among the high number of killings I'd imagine it becomes rather easy to start slipping in people you want out of your way.
|
Norway28892 Posts
How is that relevant? Is the US going to 'lose the war against China' if they don't accept the help of Duterte? Like, I have no problem with people, everywhere, favoring self-preservation over anything else. That principle seems pretty ubiquitous for all life and as such I cannot pass moral judgment. But when we're not talking self-preservation, where we're comparing the actual lives of others with the marginal improvement of ours, it's a very different equation, and I personally find the notion that we should not care about that which does not directly affect ourselves to not only be morally bankrupt; I also find it extremely dangerous, and I think that a too high prevalence of this mindset is making our world a significantly shittier place than it has to be. Not that I am saying you have this mindset, you are just about vague enough for it to be hard to actually pinpoint your position. 
|
Norway28892 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:59 Kasto wrote:
To literally set out to kill 100 000 people seems like an unimaginable nightmare in paperwork for investigation and justice system. If you pass those as it seems to be happening, you'll probably end up with a lot of false positives.
Among the high number of killings I'd imagine it becomes rather easy to start slipping in people you want out of your way.
They're not really bothering with the paperwork at all from the looks of it. From the article which spurred this discussion, only 10% or so of police murders are investigated. (If I remember correctly).
|
On December 09 2016 08:52 LegalLord wrote:
Let me turn the question around: if Hitler or equivalent was offering to help you out against a neighbor you are in a war with and are certain to lose without help, do you accept the aid?
Sometimes tolerance is proportional to need.
The US doesn't need the Philippines though. It can be used against the US if they compliment and let go what he is doing. Any attempt to then do it against Russia, China, or whoever else can just be met with "You guys are hypocrites, since you guys are apparently good with what they are doing over there. Why bitch at us?"
|
On December 09 2016 08:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:How is that relevant? Is the US going to 'lose the war against China' if they don't accept the help of Duterte? Like, I have no problem with people, everywhere, favoring self-preservation over anything else. That principle seems pretty ubiquitous for all life and as such I cannot pass moral judgment. But when we're not talking self-preservation, where we're comparing the actual lives of others with the marginal improvement of ours, it's a very different equation, and I personally find the notion that we should not care about that which does not directly affect ourselves to not only be morally bankrupt; I also find it extremely dangerous, and I think that a too high prevalence of this mindset is making our world a significantly shittier place than it has to be. Not that I am saying you have this mindset, you are just about vague enough for it to be hard to actually pinpoint your position.
It's relevant in that you asked if there is some level of human rights abuse that is sufficient to override strategic importance. My point is that it works in reverse, that sometimes the strategic need is so great that you are willing to ignore that the other party is literally Hitler.
And Duterte is far from Hitler. Don't get me wrong, if he were an opponent of important nations in a strategic location, he would be branded as the next Hitler easily (e.g. Gamal Abdel Nasser). As it stands, he's a guy in a country with a significant crime problem who promised to be tough on crime in a very aggressive, possibly hyperbolic way. That nation does hold quite a bit of strategic value for a strategy in opposition to China and it would be best not to push it towards the "break away from the US" direction. And while that doesn't mean you should necessarily support him, it provides a reasonable rationale for why it's not in and of itself a complete absurdity, at all.
On December 09 2016 09:02 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 08:52 LegalLord wrote:
Let me turn the question around: if Hitler or equivalent was offering to help you out against a neighbor you are in a war with and are certain to lose without help, do you accept the aid?
Sometimes tolerance is proportional to need. Any attempt to then do it against Russia, China, or whoever else can just be met with "You guys are hypocrites, since you guys are apparently good with what they are doing over there. Why bitch at us?"
There are plenty of previous examples of such hypocrisy already available, so one more wouldn't mean anything.
|
Norway28892 Posts
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand?
|
My position is pretty much, "I wouldn't do it myself but I could see the rationale to justify such a decision." Trump's own goals are more closely tied to a hard line against crime, so I see why he could be more sympathetic there.
And "horrific" is relative and, in this case, overblown.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand?
I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)?
|
On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)?
There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights.
The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example).
|
On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example).
The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered.
|
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns.
|
On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered.
Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example).
Had made an edit that didnt go through saying that I'm not sure exactly what Trump did. Did he openly praise his methods or what?
|
On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right...
So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right?
|
On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns.
I know you guys don't want to hear this, but y'all on the left are badly underestimating Trump. Trump is going to keep winning politically until y'all wise up and start looking at him with a real critical eye as opposed to through the lens of the stupid the caricature that the media and democrats have provided y'all with. Believe me when I say that I hope y'all stay the course.
|
On December 09 2016 10:27 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). Had made an edit that didnt go through saying that I'm not sure exactly what Trump did. Did he openly praise his methods or what?
I believe he praised him during the primary tho I am unable to find a qoute on that atm.
And he had a phone call with him last friday in which Trump praised his work in fighting drug crime and invited him to come to the White House next year.
On December 09 2016 10:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right?
On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example).
Try keeping up with what people are saying instead of trying to change the goalposts again to avoid losing an argument.
|
On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right...
I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him.
|
On December 09 2016 10:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:27 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). Had made an edit that didnt go through saying that I'm not sure exactly what Trump did. Did he openly praise his methods or what? I believe he praised him during the primary tho I am unable to find a qoute on that atm. And he had a phone call with him last friday in which Trump praised his work in fighting drug crime and invited him to come to the White House next year. Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right? Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). Try keeping up with what people are saying instead of trying to change the goalposts again to avoid losing an argument.
No, you're the one who is not keeping up with the argument. I pointed out that, unlike with the Saudis, Obama did not keep quiet regarding what Duterte was doing domestically, which is why it is a good idea for Trump to say some complimentary things about Duterte to rebuild the relationship. You then responded with this:
Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right...
And then I replied with this:
So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right?
To put it mildly, I think you badly need to amend one of your answers for consistency purposes.
|
On December 09 2016 10:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:41 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:27 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). Had made an edit that didnt go through saying that I'm not sure exactly what Trump did. Did he openly praise his methods or what? I believe he praised him during the primary tho I am unable to find a qoute on that atm. And he had a phone call with him last friday in which Trump praised his work in fighting drug crime and invited him to come to the White House next year. On December 09 2016 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right? On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). Try keeping up with what people are saying instead of trying to change the goalposts again to avoid losing an argument. No, you're the one who is not keeping up with the argument. I pointed out that, unlike with the Saudis, Obama did not keep quiet regarding what Duterte was doing domestically, which is why it is a good idea for Trump to say some complimentary things about Duterte to rebuild the relationship. You then responded with this: Show nested quote +Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... And then I replied with this: Show nested quote +So are you advocating that Western nations toss out their relationships with every country that engages in human rights abuses? You do realize how few non-Western allies that there'd be, right? To put it mildly, I think you badly need to amend one of your answers for consistency purposes.
Here we go again.On December 09 2016 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote:
If someone were elected on the promise of killing
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here.
What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is. Obama decided to comment. he didn't have to but he did.
Trump wants to repair relations? He can do so without praising the man's work at butchering his own people and without inviting him over for a visit.
|
On December 09 2016 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote:
If someone were elected on the promise of killing
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here.
What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is.
Conservatives think progressive are killing millions of children each year. Millions of infanticide murders without investigation, without punishment.
Should a conservative president follow his moral compass and arrest/detain/shun 100% of the pro choice community because of his moral code?
Or by morality, do you really mean your own morality and not the morality of others.
LegalLord is merely pointing out that Duterte wasn't exactly hiding his plans and double crossing the Filipino people. What he's doing is horrible, I agree, but imagine a population of 70+ million supportive of those actions. How bad could their life be if someone shows up with that message and it resonates with them?
Life is complicated. Stop judging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
