|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 08 2013 01:14 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation.
Double Barreled Question(s).
Women's rights are Western ideas.
Women's rights shouldn't be "forced" (i.e. by military invasion/action) on Islamic (or any) countries.
Women's rights are universal ideas.
Women's rights should be supported by every country.
There are four different questions here that you've combined into two. The general fallacy seems to be that one cannot move from "Syria should support women's rights" to "we have the moral right (or, for some, the obligation) to take military action against their country in order to rectify their lack of support for women's rights." A rather simplified analogy, in my mind, would be that this is rather like disciplining a child by beating him when he does something wrong, rather than by actually investigating and/or correcting the (flawed) reasons he has for doing wrong things. People who think that women are equal to men generally don't oppress women. People who are subject to sudden, unilateral changes in the law at gunpoint will probably obey the law, but they won't gain any particular respect for women. If anything, they'll probably hate them more, since people really hate arbitrary reasoning when it's used against them.
The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week.
It's incredibly simplistic to claim that there is some magical "root of all the problems in the middle east." There isn't. There are many different problems, many different possible solutions, and many different hypothetical causes for these problems. Claiming that the Islamic religion (in some reducible form) is the root cause of issues in the Middle East is nonsensical, because it's impossible to separate the Middle East from Islam; Islam has been with them for over a thousand years. Many of those years bore a civilization that was arguably more sophisticated (in terms of human rights) than its Western (medieval) counterparts.
Actually, yes, we are.
No, actually, we aren't. The imposition of beliefs is not only morally reprehensible, but it's arguably impossible, given that beliefs are, generally speaking, not decisions, barring some level of abuse against the psyche (e.g. if you torture someone, you may eventually break them enough to make them believe something). People who believe that women are not equal to men cannot be forced to change their minds. All that can be done is to educate them and find common ground. You could force them to act as if women were equal to men, but this would be rather useless at achieving the more important aim of, you know, actually creating a society that thinks women are equal to men because they actually are, rather than because a bunch of white guys with guns came into your country, deposed the government, destabilized the justice system, killed a bunch of people, and then asserted a bunch of new laws.
You seem to be of the mind that this sort of process (i.e. conversion by the sword) is actually legitimized by your belief that some particular ethical position is correct. But that's a ridiculous position, because there hasn't been a person in all of history who didn't believe the ethical/religious/philosophical/political system they were imposing at the end of a sword was incorrect. What I'm saying is that your conclusion (that women are equal to men, for example) is correct, but that attempting to threaten people into believing it is both immoral and doomed to failure.
Moral relativity is the coward's way of excusing inaction in the face of evil. Some things are simply not relative, an absolute truth can be found.
Absolute truth exists, but truth doesn't absolve moral crimes. You cannot justify an inherently immoral action (like, say, murder, or brainwashing) by claiming that it promotes belief in some absolute truth. That's actually moral relativism in it's most insidious form.
A society which does not deny basic rights and freedoms to half of its population is morally superior to one that does not, for example.
And yet you (nor anyone else) is the arbiter of other people's actions; you cannot simply declare such societies into existence, because such societies are predicated on the beliefs and actions of individuals. The morally correct thing to do is to actually focus on convincing people not to hate women rather than on killing or deposing people who disagree. The irony, firstly, is incredible (women's rights = absolute truth, voiding the consent which founds all moral action to "force" people to believe things = just fine).
I'm not saying inaction is the best thing, because it never is. But I am saying that military action is in no way justified by your argument about moral superiority.
|
On September 08 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +A society which does not deny basic rights of half its population but terrorizes and kills people in other societies using its own definition of what's 'right' is morally superior? Yes, a nation that does not brutalize half its population and terrorizes and kills fascists in societies that breed fascists like locusts, who then proceed to terrorize and kill in their own societies and others, is morally superior. That's not a hard conclusion to draw for someone who is not morally obtuse. Show nested quote +Anyone who believes the USA is willing to enter the conflict because of ''human rights violations'' is gravely mistaken. They simply have their own interests and they are pursuing them under the veil of human rights an democracy. Like they always did... You're damn right human rights violations aren't enough to go bomb a country over especially when people rage and foam at the mouth over it. Why would firefighters try to put out a house fire if there were a thousand people in their faces screaming that no one appointed them to take care of fires and they only want to stop that fire so they can loot the house.
Hold your horses. I didn't say that USA shouldn't intervene I just said that they will not intervene because of human rights.
|
On September 08 2013 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 01:30 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now. And then we invaded a country and instate a puppet government (as you say they need to follow the rules we lay out for them). And yet were the good guys in this? What gives us the right to invade a nation and pick who gets to rule it? Morality? Divine Providence? Western Racial Supremacy? We have no more right to decide for a nation/people how they are governed then they have a right to demand the same of us. Moral relativity is the coward's way of excusing inaction in the face of evil. Some things are simply not relative, an absolute truth can be found. A society which does not deny basic rights and freedoms to half of its population is morally superior to one that does not, for example.
There are very few absolute truths when it comes to morality. I would much prefer Syria to be a democratic country with rules and morals such as we have however I do not believe we should force such issues at gunpoint. It makes us no better then any other extremist, we kill you because we're right and you are not.
As for inaction. its a product of the situation and I will admit my inaction comes from a lack of solution. Keeping Assad in power solves nothing. Deposing him for the rebels would likely not stop the violence because there are to many factions who hate each other and only work together against a common foe (Assad). So do we just kill everyone that doesn't agree with our view? And were back to my point above.
|
|
|
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit.
|
On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote:
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit.
Its all political I guess. I think its horse shit that nobody want to take action and free Tibet. And I think its horseshit when North Korea can ruin the lives of millions. I guess on a world scale they need something to pin their actions on. And chemical attacks were that.
Edit. But you are right. 99% of the dead were due to guns, and when 1% (or less) die due to gas, everybody freaks out.
|
On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote:
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit.
Well, the problem is that reacting to guns & bombs killing a bunch of civilians by military action generally results in a lot of civilians dying to...guns & bombs. Kinda makes the "noble" intervening nation look like a bit of hypocrite. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths, whether you call them "collateral damage" or a "massacre."
|
On September 08 2013 04:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote:
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit. Well, the problem is that reacting to guns & bombs killing a bunch of civilians by military action generally results in a lot of civilians dying to...guns & bombs. Kinda makes the "noble" intervening nation look like a bit of hypocrite. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths, whether you call them "collateral damage" or a "massacre."
That's a very childish way at looking at things.
edit: Though I will agree insofar as the military action is not followed up with the establishment of a colony/protectorate. If we want to nation build, we should nation build. If we don't want to nation build, we should not be anywhere near the nation in question.
|
On September 08 2013 04:47 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote:
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit. Its all political I guess. I think its horse shit that nobody want to take action and free Tibet. And I think its horseshit when North Korea can ruin the lives of millions. I guess on a world scale they need something to pin their actions on. And chemical attacks were that. Edit. But you are right. 99% of the dead were due to guns, and when 1% (or less) die due to gas, everybody freaks out.
The Chinese already did that, fortunately. I mean, free Tibet? That place was a backwards feudal slave camp before the Chinese took over...
|
On September 08 2013 04:47 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote:
I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit. Its all political I guess. I think its horse shit that nobody want to take action and free Tibet. And I think its horseshit when North Korea can ruin the lives of millions. I guess on a world scale they need something to pin their actions on. And chemical attacks were that. Edit. But you are right. 99% of the dead were due to guns, and when 1% (or less) die due to gas, everybody freaks out.
Except it isnt, you said it yourself, it is a horribly atrocious event, when a weapon powerful enough to kill 1,5% of what took 2 years all over the whole country to kill. Not to mention how it kills in a far more indescriminate way than conventional weapons.
Some ways of killing, especially the more impersonal they are, are, and rightly so, considered far more atrocious than bullets or bombs. Compare e.g. concentration camps to the amount of deaths due to bombings in WW2. Its not just the number of people killed that determines what is atrocities.
|
Whenever I meet a Moral relativist (I cannot prefer moral package A over moral package B, because it can be culture-dependent or we lack an arbiter or we lack sufficient knowledge, etc) I'm reminded of the following story by an ethics teacher.
When I teach my ethics class, there is always someone who disagrees with everything on the grounds that morals are relative, i.e., there is no way to judge which morals are superior. I always straight-up fail them in the exam. When they come to complain to me, saying that their exam was well argued, etc., I respond that I felt like failing them. When they are outraged at this, I point out that, according to the student, morals are relative, so he cannot judge me wrong for it. Usually, the come to their senses afterwards.
I especially dislike the argument that we aren't apt to judge. Of course we are. As human beings, we have been the faculty to make moral judgments, and we make them all the time. We use various different methods for it: gut feeling, conventions, formal theories, agreements, comparisons, etc. But, in the end, we take the information at our disposal, and we make the call. In fact, it's difficult not to make the call. You try impassively watching a discussion in which something you strongly believe in is discussed in the opposite way you prefer. It brings out an almost animal-like sense of rage. In conclusion, to make moral judgments is fundamentally human.
That's why Kwark is exactly someone to make the moral judgment above - he is human. He might be an asshole (pace Kwark) but that does not detract from his right to make the judgment. We can naturally make different judgments, we can even argue against the judgment to try to sway his moral compass, but we cannot detach his right to make the judgment itself.
WRT Syria, we all, and the global community as a whole, do need to make a moral judgment. In fact, a great many people (even Obama) have already made theirs. And this is how it is supposed to be.
|
On September 08 2013 03:02 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 01:14 white_horse wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation. Double Barreled Question(s).Women's rights are Western ideas. Women's rights shouldn't be "forced" (i.e. by military invasion/action) on Islamic (or any) countries. Women's rights are universal ideas. Women's rights should be supported by every country. There are four different questions here that you've combined into two. The general fallacy seems to be that one cannot move from "Syria should support women's rights" to "we have the moral right (or, for some, the obligation) to take military action against their country in order to rectify their lack of support for women's rights." A rather simplified analogy, in my mind, would be that this is rather like disciplining a child by beating him when he does something wrong, rather than by actually investigating and/or correcting the (flawed) reasons he has for doing wrong things. People who think that women are equal to men generally don't oppress women. People who are subject to sudden, unilateral changes in the law at gunpoint will probably obey the law, but they won't gain any particular respect for women. If anything, they'll probably hate them more, since people really hate arbitrary reasoning when it's used against them. Show nested quote +The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week. It's incredibly simplistic to claim that there is some magical "root of all the problems in the middle east." There isn't. There are many different problems, many different possible solutions, and many different hypothetical causes for these problems. Claiming that the Islamic religion (in some reducible form) is the root cause of issues in the Middle East is nonsensical, because it's impossible to separate the Middle East from Islam; Islam has been with them for over a thousand years. Many of those years bore a civilization that was arguably more sophisticated (in terms of human rights) than its Western (medieval) counterparts. No, actually, we aren't. The imposition of beliefs is not only morally reprehensible, but it's arguably impossible, given that beliefs are, generally speaking, not decisions, barring some level of abuse against the psyche (e.g. if you torture someone, you may eventually break them enough to make them believe something). People who believe that women are not equal to men cannot be forced to change their minds. All that can be done is to educate them and find common ground. You could force them to act as if women were equal to men, but this would be rather useless at achieving the more important aim of, you know, actually creating a society that thinks women are equal to men because they actually are, rather than because a bunch of white guys with guns came into your country, deposed the government, destabilized the justice system, killed a bunch of people, and then asserted a bunch of new laws. You seem to be of the mind that this sort of process (i.e. conversion by the sword) is actually legitimized by your belief that some particular ethical position is correct. But that's a ridiculous position, because there hasn't been a person in all of history who didn't believe the ethical/religious/philosophical/political system they were imposing at the end of a sword was incorrect. What I'm saying is that your conclusion (that women are equal to men, for example) is correct, but that attempting to threaten people into believing it is both immoral and doomed to failure.
There were these people, they were called the Nazis. They thought certain people were superior to certain other people. Than America and Russia eliminated them to the wrongness of their belief and now most dont.
There also these other people, they were called Southern White Americans. They thought that certain people were superior to certain other people and sought to limit contact between superior and inferior people. Then the US government and lobbying groups representing the supposedly inferior people educated them and now a black guy is president.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this stuff about calling certain ideas 'western' is itself hugely problematic .
|
On September 08 2013 06:16 Ghanburighan wrote:Whenever I meet a Moral relativist (I cannot prefer moral package A over moral package B, because it can be culture-dependent or we lack an arbiter or we lack sufficient knowledge, etc) I'm reminded of the following story by an ethics teacher. Show nested quote +
When I teach my ethics class, there is always someone who disagrees with everything on the grounds that morals are relative, i.e., there is no way to judge which morals are superior. I always straight-up fail them in the exam. When they come to complain to me, saying that their exam was well argued, etc., I respond that I felt like failing them. When they are outraged at this, I point out that, according to the student, morals are relative, so he cannot judge me wrong for it. Usually, the come to their senses afterwards.
So You had duchebag teacher, thats great.
And a bad one too. Moral relativism isnt about not being able to prefere or choose one moral system over the other. Its about acknowleding the fact that no moral system is superior to another. In fact it is impossible to to not follow a specific moral system.
But that has very little to do with Syria. Main problem with Syria is complexity of the situation, people dont know what is best desired (yet possible) outcome, therfore the correct course of action is not clear.
|
On September 08 2013 01:14 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation. The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week.
It wasnt that long ago that women in the west didnt have manny rights (voting 1920 amongst others), and women are still not treated fully equall here..(one christian party in the netherlands doesnt allow women to participate for example)
I think we should give thoose countrys a bit more time, forcing a cultural change is verry difficult and might bring more harm then good.
The main root of all problems:
People here are so naive,almost noone has a clue.
Learn some proper history.
|
On September 08 2013 06:35 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 03:02 Shiori wrote:On September 08 2013 01:14 white_horse wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation. Double Barreled Question(s).Women's rights are Western ideas. Women's rights shouldn't be "forced" (i.e. by military invasion/action) on Islamic (or any) countries. Women's rights are universal ideas. Women's rights should be supported by every country. There are four different questions here that you've combined into two. The general fallacy seems to be that one cannot move from "Syria should support women's rights" to "we have the moral right (or, for some, the obligation) to take military action against their country in order to rectify their lack of support for women's rights." A rather simplified analogy, in my mind, would be that this is rather like disciplining a child by beating him when he does something wrong, rather than by actually investigating and/or correcting the (flawed) reasons he has for doing wrong things. People who think that women are equal to men generally don't oppress women. People who are subject to sudden, unilateral changes in the law at gunpoint will probably obey the law, but they won't gain any particular respect for women. If anything, they'll probably hate them more, since people really hate arbitrary reasoning when it's used against them. The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week. It's incredibly simplistic to claim that there is some magical "root of all the problems in the middle east." There isn't. There are many different problems, many different possible solutions, and many different hypothetical causes for these problems. Claiming that the Islamic religion (in some reducible form) is the root cause of issues in the Middle East is nonsensical, because it's impossible to separate the Middle East from Islam; Islam has been with them for over a thousand years. Many of those years bore a civilization that was arguably more sophisticated (in terms of human rights) than its Western (medieval) counterparts. Actually, yes, we are. No, actually, we aren't. The imposition of beliefs is not only morally reprehensible, but it's arguably impossible, given that beliefs are, generally speaking, not decisions, barring some level of abuse against the psyche (e.g. if you torture someone, you may eventually break them enough to make them believe something). People who believe that women are not equal to men cannot be forced to change their minds. All that can be done is to educate them and find common ground. You could force them to act as if women were equal to men, but this would be rather useless at achieving the more important aim of, you know, actually creating a society that thinks women are equal to men because they actually are, rather than because a bunch of white guys with guns came into your country, deposed the government, destabilized the justice system, killed a bunch of people, and then asserted a bunch of new laws. You seem to be of the mind that this sort of process (i.e. conversion by the sword) is actually legitimized by your belief that some particular ethical position is correct. But that's a ridiculous position, because there hasn't been a person in all of history who didn't believe the ethical/religious/philosophical/political system they were imposing at the end of a sword was incorrect. What I'm saying is that your conclusion (that women are equal to men, for example) is correct, but that attempting to threaten people into believing it is both immoral and doomed to failure. There were these people, they were called the Nazis. They thought certain people were superior to certain other people. Than America and Russia eliminated them to the wrongness of their belief and now most dont. There also these other people, they were called Southern White Americans. They thought that certain people were superior to certain other people and sought to limit contact between superior and inferior people. Then the US government and lobbying groups representing the supposedly inferior people educated them and now a black guy is president.
Are you really using Soviet Russia as an example of fighting against the idea that people were better than other people? Wow.
That's a very childish way at looking at things.
That's because only adults are crafty enough to convince themselves that war is anything but a morally repugnant enterprise.
Pro-war people always have at least one hidden premise presumed before the argument begins, so it's generally not worth debating it with them. I don't mean that critically, either; it's just that these people tend to make a particular leap in logic (i.e. from "X is committing a moral evil" to "it is no longer immoral to murder X") without explicating a coherent moral framework (it's especially weird if these people are, say, religious, since religions tend to eschew utilitarianism, which makes this kind of argument almost self-contradictory).
If you're referring to my statement about collateral damage still being essentially a moral crime, then I'll simply say that the following things are true:
1) Actions are judged (morally) within the context of the agent (i.e. you have to understand the situation and what you're doing)
2) Collateral damage is generally predictable
3) Collateral damage is not morally equivalent to accidents.
I mean, whatever floats your boat, I guess. But you have to be pretty delusional to think that you can simultaneously claim the absolution of moral responsibility afforded by the accidental character of an action and plan this shit ahead of time.
|
Silvanel, can you explain how inability to have preference or choice over a set of morals is different from a moral system not being superior to another. To me that sounds like A is different from A. Perhaps if you use less negation, you'll make it more clear. But I think you are trying to propose that we take a god's eye view on morals, instead of taking the more natural perspective of judgments by human beings. We are not god, therefore cannot judge like god does.
Even in situations of imperfect information (in fact, this happens pretty much always), we need to make moral judgments. We do know that chemical weapons were used, namely Sarin. We also know that it was used on rebels. The question is, do we believe that Assad's brother's forces used the CW, or do we believe that the rebels used CW on themselves? There's more circumstantial evidence like phone records, but the main idea is: if faced with imperfect information, you remove anything that is impossible and then take that which is most likely. And you then act as if that is certainty.
I think the case is quite simple, the most likely perpetrator is Assad. And if he is sent the message that he can get away with using CW a few miles from where UN CW inspectors are staying in a hotel, he can do whatever he likes because the bar for evidence (or at least according to what counts as evidence in a UNSC world) is too high for him to ever fear repercussions.
|
The Syrian government now has a pattern of launching chemical weapons attacks in frustrating or strategically important areas.
My analysis of the military situation in Syria has been the same now for a year, if not more. The overall situation is unchanged.
The Syrian government is primarily being handicapped by Damascus. Damascus, being the center of power, means it is a tough nut to crack, but it also means the regime must defend it at all costs. The level of security must be high; even raids, suicide attacks, or sniper attacks inside the city would be unacceptable. As such, the majority of the Syrian Army's strength is deployed to Damascus.
As long as there is a significant rebel and jihadist presence in Damascus's suburbs... the government cannot win the war. As long as they rebel presence exists, the government will need to keep a disproportionately large force in Damascus and its surroundings to protect the strategic assets. 10,000 rebels there can tie up 60,000 Syrian troops. The government's need to keep the city absolutely secure at all costs means rebels existing around and in some cases within the city limits mean the Syrian Army has to pull troops from other provinces to protect the capital. This has allowed the fringes of the country, north and east especially, to be whittled down to nothing more than regime outposts, typically the large urban centers, where the government will shell and bomb heavily to keep rebels away, making up for a lack of manpower with their firepower advantage.
However, this also means if the rebels in Damascus were crushed, a huge amount of Syrian Army assets would be free to move to other parts of the country. It would be like the dam broke. Much of it would be well trained and loyal manpower too; the Republican Guard, 4th Division, 3rd Division, special forces regiments.
Understanding that, you can probably also see how the Syrian government is determined to smash the rebels in Damascus. It was this pressure that caused them to launch a chemical attack much larger than any they have dared to try before; conventional attacks had not yet been able to break through the brutal and grueling urban warfare situation around the city. Damascus is the key. Not because Damascus is at risk of falling, but because poking Damascus means the government loses control of the rest of the country. Homs is a similar case on a smaller scale.
Seeing this statement in a Reuters articleReuters article I just read made me much more comfortable in my understanding:
"But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo."
The attacks happened because of the importance of Damascus. Not directly, but indirectly. The government, in my opinion 100% accurately, believes they will lose unless they can decisively defeat rebels/jihadists around Damascus. Only then can their base of power be secure enough that the huge portion of the army they have stationed there to maintain a sense of security and normalcy can be moved.
|
On September 08 2013 06:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 06:35 Sub40APM wrote:On September 08 2013 03:02 Shiori wrote:On September 08 2013 01:14 white_horse wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation. Double Barreled Question(s).Women's rights are Western ideas. Women's rights shouldn't be "forced" (i.e. by military invasion/action) on Islamic (or any) countries. Women's rights are universal ideas. Women's rights should be supported by every country. There are four different questions here that you've combined into two. The general fallacy seems to be that one cannot move from "Syria should support women's rights" to "we have the moral right (or, for some, the obligation) to take military action against their country in order to rectify their lack of support for women's rights." A rather simplified analogy, in my mind, would be that this is rather like disciplining a child by beating him when he does something wrong, rather than by actually investigating and/or correcting the (flawed) reasons he has for doing wrong things. People who think that women are equal to men generally don't oppress women. People who are subject to sudden, unilateral changes in the law at gunpoint will probably obey the law, but they won't gain any particular respect for women. If anything, they'll probably hate them more, since people really hate arbitrary reasoning when it's used against them. The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week. It's incredibly simplistic to claim that there is some magical "root of all the problems in the middle east." There isn't. There are many different problems, many different possible solutions, and many different hypothetical causes for these problems. Claiming that the Islamic religion (in some reducible form) is the root cause of issues in the Middle East is nonsensical, because it's impossible to separate the Middle East from Islam; Islam has been with them for over a thousand years. Many of those years bore a civilization that was arguably more sophisticated (in terms of human rights) than its Western (medieval) counterparts. Actually, yes, we are. No, actually, we aren't. The imposition of beliefs is not only morally reprehensible, but it's arguably impossible, given that beliefs are, generally speaking, not decisions, barring some level of abuse against the psyche (e.g. if you torture someone, you may eventually break them enough to make them believe something). People who believe that women are not equal to men cannot be forced to change their minds. All that can be done is to educate them and find common ground. You could force them to act as if women were equal to men, but this would be rather useless at achieving the more important aim of, you know, actually creating a society that thinks women are equal to men because they actually are, rather than because a bunch of white guys with guns came into your country, deposed the government, destabilized the justice system, killed a bunch of people, and then asserted a bunch of new laws. You seem to be of the mind that this sort of process (i.e. conversion by the sword) is actually legitimized by your belief that some particular ethical position is correct. But that's a ridiculous position, because there hasn't been a person in all of history who didn't believe the ethical/religious/philosophical/political system they were imposing at the end of a sword was incorrect. What I'm saying is that your conclusion (that women are equal to men, for example) is correct, but that attempting to threaten people into believing it is both immoral and doomed to failure. There were these people, they were called the Nazis. They thought certain people were superior to certain other people. Than America and Russia eliminated them to the wrongness of their belief and now most dont. There also these other people, they were called Southern White Americans. They thought that certain people were superior to certain other people and sought to limit contact between superior and inferior people. Then the US government and lobbying groups representing the supposedly inferior people educated them and now a black guy is president. Are you really using Soviet Russia as an example of fighting against the idea that people were better than other people? Wow. That's because only adults are crafty enough to convince themselves that war is anything but a morally repugnant enterprise. Pro-war people always have at least one hidden premise presumed before the argument begins, so it's generally not worth debating it with them. I don't mean that critically, either; it's just that these people tend to make a particular leap in logic (i.e. from "X is committing a moral evil" to "it is no longer immoral to murder X") without explicating a coherent moral framework (it's especially weird if these people are, say, religious, since religions tend to eschew utilitarianism, which makes this kind of argument almost self-contradictory). If you're referring to my statement about collateral damage still being essentially a moral crime, then I'll simply say that the following things are true: 1) Actions are judged (morally) within the context of the agent (i.e. you have to understand the situation and what you're doing) 2) Collateral damage is generally predictable 3) Collateral damage is not morally equivalent to accidents. I mean, whatever floats your boat, I guess. But you have to be pretty delusional to think that you can simultaneously claim the absolution of moral responsibility afforded by the accidental character of an action and plan this shit ahead of time.
Well said.
What we have here is a war bubble.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UAwu3FY.jpg)
|
On September 08 2013 07:04 Romantic wrote:The Syrian government now has a pattern of launching chemical weapons attacks in frustrating or strategically important areas. My analysis of the military situation in Syria has been the same now for a year, if not more. The overall situation is unchanged. The Syrian government is primarily being handicapped by Damascus. Damascus, being the center of power, means it is a tough nut to crack, but it also means the regime must defend it at all costs. The level of security must be high; even raids, suicide attacks, or sniper attacks inside the city would be unacceptable. As such, the majority of the Syrian Army's strength is deployed to Damascus. As long as there is a significant rebel and jihadist presence in Damascus's suburbs... the government cannot win the war. As long as they rebel presence exists, the government will need to keep a disproportionately large force in Damascus and its surroundings to protect the strategic assets. 10,000 rebels there can tie up 60,000 Syrian troops. The government's need to keep the city absolutely secure at all costs means rebels existing around and in some cases within the city limits mean the Syrian Army has to pull troops from other provinces to protect the capital. This has allowed the fringes of the country, north and east especially, to be whittled down to nothing more than regime outposts, typically the large urban centers, where the government will shell and bomb heavily to keep rebels away, making up for a lack of manpower with their firepower advantage. However, this also means if the rebels in Damascus were crushed, a huge amount of Syrian Army assets would be free to move to other parts of the country. It would be like the dam broke. Much of it would be well trained and loyal manpower too; the Republican Guard, 4th Division, 3rd Division, special forces regiments. Understanding that, you can probably also see how the Syrian government is determined to smash the rebels in Damascus. It was this pressure that caused them to launch a chemical attack much larger than any they have dared to try before; conventional attacks had not yet been able to break through the brutal and grueling urban warfare situation around the city. Damascus is the key. Not because Damascus is at risk of falling, but because poking Damascus means the government loses control of the rest of the country. Homs is a similar case on a smaller scale. Seeing this statement in a Reuters articleReuters article I just read made me much more comfortable in my understanding: "But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo." The attacks happened because of the importance of Damascus. Not directly, but indirectly. The government, in my opinion 100% accurately, believes they will lose unless they can decisively defeat rebels/jihadists around Damascus. Only then can their base of power be secure enough that the huge portion of the army they have stationed there to maintain a sense of security and normalcy can be moved.
The problem with this entire theory is a lack of evidence that they actually used chemical weapons. You could make similar circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory that the rebels wanted to provoke US involvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
