EPTOn July 04 2017 23:54 Nevuk wrote:
But I thought Trump was going to sort him out??
(thankfully he seems to have gotten off of that idea)
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7997
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21392 Posts
But I thought Trump was going to sort him out?? (thankfully he seems to have gotten off of that idea) | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
They were in range all the time, but finally NK can also shoot ot other targets (in case this was indeed a proper ICBM) ^.^ | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Shit should have been settled at least a decade ago. But evidently no one is willing to take a problem seriously until it becomes so critical that the stakes are life-or-death. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 05 2017 00:14 Gorsameth wrote: But I thought Trump was going to sort him out?? (thankfully he seems to have gotten off of that idea) Won't stop him from talking out his ass. Modern day presidential. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On July 05 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote: NK has been doing some really impressive rocket work lately. It won't be long until they have a genuine ICBM. Shit should have been settled at least a decade ago. But evidently no one is willing to take a problem seriously until it becomes so critical that the stakes are life-or-death. When was NK for the last time not a life'n'death issue? Should be >100 years. Ah I forgot, only Korean lifes at stake, who cares. NK having ICBM change nothing for 99% of those who are really affected by any conflict around NK. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Especially in regards to firing rockets. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 04 2017 14:30 Introvert wrote: Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this. They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. + Show Spoiler + and aren't making an obviously abusive or immoral choice So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform. Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure. It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals have removed that from the equation. Money is is the question in this instance because healthcare (at least as those of you of the opinion that this experimental procedure is health-granting) is sold for money on the market. What matters is a spirit's being able to direct/spend that money on healthcare. In saying the parents are "entitled" to any treatment that promises to extend the life of their brain dead baby we are saying that they are entitled to whatever they can buy, no more no less. This is a freedom of commerce issue, at least once the State is deemed to have no place in it. Healthcare must be disconnected from the State entirely and turned into a pure market good. If one accepts that healthcare is not a pure, unecumbered commodity, but a social good, the place of the State and the People opens up a bit. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:08 IgnE wrote: Money is is the question in this instance because healthcare (at least as those of you of the opinion that this experimental procedure is health-granting) is sold for money on the market. What matters is a spirit's being able to direct/spend that money on healthcare. In saying the parents are "entitled" to any treatment that promises to extend the life of their brain dead baby we are saying that they are entitled to whatever they can buy, no more no less. This is a freedom of commerce issue, at least once the State is deemed to have no place in it. Healthcare must be disconnected from the State entirely and turned into a pure market good. If one accepts that healthcare is not a pure, unecumbered commodity, but a social good, the place of the State and the People opens up a bit. but the point is that even if the treatment was 1$ they'd still not be allowed to get the treatment because the judge considers it to be abuse of the child in one way or another. It is not clear that he doesn't feel pain like you and pmh said. It's just flat out not known what his condition is like and I don't think he is braindead (yet) either. The "treatment" has literally no chance of helping him nor easing any pain if he does feel pain. But it has the potential to cause pain | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 05 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote: NK has been doing some really impressive rocket work lately. It won't be long until they have a genuine ICBM. Shit should have been settled at least a decade ago. But evidently no one is willing to take a problem seriously until it becomes so critical that the stakes are life-or-death. if there was a viable settlement it would've been done already; do you have a proposal to settle the matter? the problem has been taken seriously for a very long time, so I don't see hwy you're claiming noone took it seriously. the stakes have also been life or death for a very long time. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7814 Posts
On July 05 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote: NK has been doing some really impressive rocket work lately. It won't be long until they have a genuine ICBM. Shit should have been settled at least a decade ago. But evidently no one is willing to take a problem seriously until it becomes so critical that the stakes are life-or-death. Yeah, but what would have been your strategy, ten years ago, from an american perspective? There are lots of geopolitical problem that don't really have a satisfactory solution. Bashar being an other obvious one. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The US had the leverage back then to wrangle cooperation out of Iran on their nuclear program, and China+Russia on the NK nuclear program. But the age-old game of "we can just wait for our opponents' governments to collapse" won out over reason. It's laughable to think that there was "no possible way" to deal with the issue. Now it still has to be dealt with but with a hell of a lot more trouble than it would have been back then. Oh well. On July 05 2017 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: There are lots of geopolitical problem that don't really have a satisfactory solution. Bashar being an other obvious one. Funny - just two years ago the cries of "Assad must go, we can't take this anymore" dominated. It was only when reality bit everyone in the ass that people started to realize that what the Syria intervention skeptics were saying actually was well-rooted in reality. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:23 LegalLord wrote: Well ten years ago the relative strength of the US was much stronger than it is now, due in large part to the simultaneous weakness of all of its major foes. That opportunity was wasted on dicking around and trying to force the issue in a series of poorly conceived military ventures in the desert lands. The US had the leverage back then to wrangle cooperation out of Iran on their nuclear program, and China+Russia on the NK nuclear program. But the age-old game of "we can just wait for our opponents' governments to collapse" won out over reason. It's laughable to think that there was "no possible way" to deal with the issue. Now it still has to be dealt with but with a hell of a lot more trouble than it would have been back then. Oh well. that doesn't actually change the underlying calculus of the situation all that much. I'm not seeing an actual actionable proposal by you, just a vague claim that something could have been done. it's easy to vaguely claim something could've been done when you don't understand a topic well (or just assume others haven't looked at it closely); but it often just means there's details you're not aware of that make it not so feasible ot do something. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21392 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:23 LegalLord wrote: Well ten years ago the relative strength of the US was much stronger than it is now, due in large part to the simultaneous weakness of all of its major foes. That opportunity was wasted on dicking around and trying to force the issue in a series of poorly conceived military ventures in the desert lands. The US had the leverage back then to wrangle cooperation out of Iran on their nuclear program, and China+Russia on the NK nuclear program. But the age-old game of "we can just wait for our opponents' governments to collapse" won out over reason. It's laughable to think that there was "no possible way" to deal with the issue. Now it still has to be dealt with but with a hell of a lot more trouble than it would have been back then. Oh well. What pressure? NK is not going to give up its nuclear weapons to China, no matter how hard the US pressures. The only way to resolve the conflict 10 years ago is the same way to resolve the conflict today, go to war and sacrifice South Korea. It wasn't an option then, its not an option now. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If a tinkle of artillery into SK was really all there was to it then this would have been resolved a long time ago. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:31 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, that's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. NK may be out of the control of any specific power but they aren't suicidal. A proper consensus on the part of everyone involved in the region that NK will not be allowed to keep their weapons no matter what would be meaningful. Unfortunately the US tends to let other concerns dominate so it doesn't work as well as one would like. If a tinkle of artillery into SK was really all there was to it then this would have been resolved a long time ago. calling it a tinkle of artillery is quite the lie; why bother lying like that? it just makes you look bad. and i'm still not seeing an actionable proposal, just an unsubstantiated claim that it would have been possible to get one, which ignores the realities of the situation. you obviously don't have a good understanding of the actual situation, so you should temper your opinion some. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7814 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:23 LegalLord wrote: Well ten years ago the relative strength of the US was much stronger than it is now, due in large part to the simultaneous weakness of all of its major foes. That opportunity was wasted on dicking around and trying to force the issue in a series of poorly conceived military ventures in the desert lands. The US had the leverage back then to wrangle cooperation out of Iran on their nuclear program, and China+Russia on the NK nuclear program. But the age-old game of "we can just wait for our opponents' governments to collapse" won out over reason. It's laughable to think that there was "no possible way" to deal with the issue. Now it still has to be dealt with but with a hell of a lot more trouble than it would have been back then. Oh well. Funny - just two years ago the cries of "Assad must go, we can't take this anymore" dominated. It was only when reality bit everyone in the ass that people started to realize that what the Syria intervention skeptics were saying actually was well-rooted in reality. Yeah well and those voices were probably naive and thought there were an easy good solution to a situation that had no happy ending whichever way you wanted to look at it. What I'm saying is that the NK situation is similar and by pretending the situation could have been easily solved in a satisfactory way you are doing essentially the same thing than those "Bashar must go" voices you mock. No one wants Bashar to stay (except Putin). No one wants NK to get ICBM. It might be that every option that has been available to prevent NK to get those or Bashar to go would have only made things significantly worse. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sometimes you have to make tough choices. This is evidently one of those times, just the geopolitics are a little bit different. NK is not beyond influence, but that would require the kind of cooperation that the US is really shitty at organizing. Oh well, it's the US that is going to be at the core of NK ire. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia and China on Tuesday proposed a plan for defusing tensions over North Korea, suggesting that Pyongyang declare a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests while the United States and South Korea refrain from large-scale military exercises. The Russian and Chinese foreign ministries made the recommendation in a joint statement after talks between President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping and another North Korean missile test. The missile flew higher and longer than previous ones North Korea has launched, sparking concerns around the world. Moscow and Beijing called Tuesday's test "unacceptable." The foreign ministries said that as a "voluntary political decision," North Korea should declare a "moratorium on testing nuclear devices and test launches of ballistic missiles." In turn, the U.S. and South Korea should "accordingly refrain from large-scale joint maneuvers," the joint statement added. They said "the confronting parties" involved should sit down for talks to agree on principles that include a refusal to use force and a pledge to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the document emphasized that the North's "sensible concerns" must be respected and urged other nations to create a "peaceful atmosphere of mutual trust" to help launch the talks. In an apparent hint at the U.S., Beijing and Moscow spoke against the "non-regional powers' military presence in Northeast Asia and its buildup under the pretext of countering North Korea's nuclear and missile programs." They specifically opposed U.S. missile defense systems in the region, saying their deployment "seriously damages strategic security interests of regional powers, including Russia and China" and hinders peace and stability. Source Giving the strongest countries in the region every reason not to cooperate with the US on this. Great job on defusing tensions, couldn't have done better myself! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 05 2017 01:14 Toadesstern wrote: but the point is that even if the treatment was 1$ they'd still not be allowed to get the treatment because the judge considers it to be abuse of the child in one way or another. It is not clear that he doesn't feel pain like you and pmh said. It's just flat out not known what his condition is like and I don't think he is braindead (yet) either. The "treatment" has literally no chance of helping him nor easing any pain if he does feel pain. But it has the potential to cause pain i object on two grounds: 1) a $1 treatment could never be "experimental" by virtue of its one-dollar-ness. it is known to be either plentiful (and therefore known) or worthless 2) you have identified in your response that the State at least implicitly is regulating a commodity as potentially harmful to at least certain buyers. my contention was that this is a "freedom of commerce" issue, not a "right to life" issue, and i don't think your argument changes that | ||
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
On July 04 2017 15:55 Keniji wrote: Do you want a philosophical discussion who gave society the right to come up with and enforce laws? Or who was given the right by whom to come up with human rights? And who is entitled to protect said human rights? Or do you want an argument whether things like child protection service are fundamentally a bad thing because why shouldnt parents own their child? Not exactly. I am thinking of the specific philosophical underpinnings of the parens patriae specifically. Or rather, this relatively new territory of a right to die interacting with parens patriae. When people live together in a society, they give away some of their rights in order to allow society to fuction I understand this and agree- I'm no anarcho-capitalist. But it's one thing to say one agrees to give away rights in general by living in society, but why these particular rights? "That's just what one does when one lives in society" isn't a proper defence of a particular right because that leaves the door wide upon for any number of abuses in the particular when defending the general.In particular, I was wondering if our modern thought still actually matched the philosophical underpinning that justified parens patriae in the first place. That is the law is useful (and I do believe it is in the case of child abuse) but the foundation no longer coheres. It's not so obvious that death is in the best interests of the child and that the state should over ride the parents. And it's certainly not so obvious that deciding death is part and parcel of parens patriae. In the case of child abuse, we are exchanging a poor life with a better life (if only marginal). In this case we are exchanging a poor life and one more shot with a very low chance of success and in it's place, death and no chance of success. Is no chance better than a very low chance? (even if infinitesimally low, and yet no chance is lower still). In doing some research on the origin of parens patriae, I was hoping to find some sort of great defence or justification for why the state was claiming this right. I have so far been disappointed. As best as I can tell it sees it's foundation in a clerical error + Show Spoiler + The Earl of Shaftsbury had by will appointed Justice Eyre and two others, dead at the time of the case, as guardians of his infant child. Upon seeing that the infant earl was attended by a governor [tutor] whom he considered unfit, Eyre sought an order for the Countess of Shaftsbury to surrender the custody of her child. The court upheld its jurisdiction, accepting the argument that ‘the Crown, as parens patriae, was the supreme guardian and superintendant over all infants,” and further stated that ‘n [Fitzherbert’s Natura Brevium] the King is bound of common right, and by the laws to defend his subjects, their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, and by the law of this realm, every loyal subject is taken to be within the King’s protection, for which reason it is, that idiots and lunatics, who are incapable to take care of themselves, are provided for by the King as pater patriae, and there is the same reason to extend this care to infants… This is the reason given in the writ de idiota inquirendo…and in (Beverley’s case) infants, as well as idiots, are said to be under the care and protection of the Crown, as persons equally unable to take care of themselves’ However, Here Custer found the transcription error giving rise to the parens patriae authority of the Chancery Court and with it, the modern basis for the superintending power of the state to safeguard the welfare interests of children through the regulation of custody. For in Beverley’s Case (1603), decided at the Court of King’s Bench, “either Coke or his printer inserted the word ‘enfant’ instead of ‘idiot’ in one place in the 1610 edition. The error was repeated and enlarged upon in the 1658 translated edition of the Reports…” (Custer, 1978, pp. 202-203). Custer discovered that the error was not corrected until the 1826 11 edition of Coke’s Reports, where the word ‘idiot’ appeared consistently throughout the opinion. “Thereafter Beverley’s Case was used sparingly and Eyre v. Shaftsbury became the precedent for upholding the crown’s and consequently the equity courts’ protective authority over minors” (p. 204). So the misinterpretation becomes precedent and the precedent becomes the foundation for all laws following in a similar vein. I don't know if anyone has further information in this development of AngloAmerican law, but this seems a pretty shaky foundation particular if the state moves to expand its protection of the child to include death. https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemVersionId=7272 edit. After all that, one thing that's niggling at me- if this would be allowed to go through, is this a last ditch, let's try anything to save the infant's life or is this an experiment and what's the dividing line between the two? Would this create a precedent for using infants as experiments? Because I want nothing to do with that . | ||
| ||
