European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 528

On August 18 2016 09:35 Nyxisto wrote:


Well a part of having authentic freedom is the freedom to submit, right? Nothing inherently wrong with forfeiting freedoms voluntarily. That's especially true when we're talking about sexual freedom. In this discussion about women and religion the idea seems to get lost that not everybody wants live as promiscuous as possible

On August 18 2016 22:52 OtherWorld wrote:
...
I think it was pretty obvious that if you're forced into submission you're not exercising your right to submit, you're just being forced into submission.

On August 18 2016 22:54 Godwrath wrote:

Yes, and how exactly do you know in which cases is one and not the another ?

On August 18 2016 22:54 Godwrath wrote:

Yes, and how exactly do you know in which cases is one and not the another ?

On August 18 2016 22:54 Godwrath wrote:

Yes, and how exactly do you know in which cases is one and not the another ?

On August 18 2016 23:24 Godwrath wrote:
There are plenty examples where we take away that freedom to stop it. Prostitution for starters.

I am not challenging that banning the Burkini might be bad, good whatever. I am just talking about the idea that freedom to submit allows you to ignore that there are women who are not wearing it exercising their freedom, but the oppossite, and you have to put that in balance.

On August 18 2016 23:24 Godwrath wrote:
There are plenty examples where we take away that freedom to stop the cases were people could end up being exploited/oppressed. Prostitution for starters.

I am not challenging that banning the Burkini might be bad, good whatever. I am just talking about the idea that freedom to submit allows you to ignore that there are women who are not wearing it exercising their freedom, but the oppossite, and you have to put that in balance when you are taking the stance. Just by saying that they are exercising their right to submit, you are ignoring the ones who are not. It's not as black and white as Nyxisto was trying to make it be when he used the argument, or atleast, that's how i understood it, that's why i am asking.

On August 19 2016 00:10 aqui wrote:


How to protect women from being coerced to wear certain cloth or being abused otherwise and the right to wear a burkini are two seperate matters. To put it to an extreme: You would not forbid sex to end martial rape.

On August 18 2016 23:24 Godwrath wrote:
There are plenty examples where we take away that freedom to stop the cases were people could end up being exploited/oppressed. Prostitution for starters.

On August 18 2016 22:45 Godwrath wrote:
Did i understand this whole thing wrong about freedom to submit?
What freedom do they really have?
If i beat my wife and she stays with me she is exercising her right to submit aswell ?
Then why the hell can neighbours call the police when she makes me a bad sandwich and i beat the crap out of her ?

You are just talking like there are not muslim women which are not forced into submission. And also talking about the right to submit, when if i am not mistaken it, it also means that someone has to be the oppressor to be able to fulfill that. So by defending the right to freely use a burkini, burka or whatever, you are also defending the symbols of oppression of islam.

But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

On August 19 2016 00:43 opisska wrote:


Yes, and there are some of us who think that we are doing this wrong.

I am personally constantly horrified by the continued attempt to instill further regulations in the name of good. The prostitution example is perfect: I just don't agree that our incapability to protect women from exploitation gives us the right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex for money. When trying to address the problem "women might be forced to have sex for money" , we should not seek to stop prostitution, but to offer a working safety network to anyone being forced to do anything. In fact, this is another example of a general issue: a lot of things we are now trying to solve with dedicated laws and prohibitions would be solved as well if we were just able to better uphold a couple of basic ones.

That's just getting the crap beaten out of you, not voluntary submission, of course that's not good.

On August 19 2016 01:19 Godwrath wrote:

Agreed


Yes, but the law isn't done for those specific cases. I had met plenty of prostitutes, because i have friends who worked as barmans in some of those places. Most i met worked there because either they enjoyed it, or because they found it to be easy money. Their only problem with legalization is that they would have to pay taxes, other than that they really prefer it for plenty of reasons. But i don't think illegalization exists to prevent that kind of transactions (they happen often, and they are advertised on newspapers here for starters), but to attempt to be able to protect the ones whom are being trafficked with. How effective it is, i don't know, but i also don't see how effective it would be to try to force their slavemasters to regularize those women/childs.

On August 19 2016 01:31 Godwrath wrote:
I am sure that's accurate for a good chunk of people who advocate to keep it illegal. And they are ussually religious bigots, with whom we have to live and take into account afterwards to legislate to preserve their idiotic freedom of religion. But i am not knowledgeable about it to really speak about if it effectively helps those, or not, so i prefer to not directly say that it's only about bigots being bigots, because i might be wrong.

Same reason why i am asking how people want to work with the islamists practices which tend to lead us to things that we successfully resolved decades ago (ie: full swimming suits or shame) other than banning (which i specifically said that it won't work).

On August 18 2016 22:54 Godwrath wrote:

Yes, and how exactly do you know in which cases is one and not the another ?

Two independent sources told EurActiv.com that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey to Romania, against the background of worsening relations between Washington and Ankara.

According to one of the sources, the transfer has been very challenging in technical and political terms.

“It’s not easy to move 20+ nukes,” said the source, on conditions of anonymity.

According to a recent report by the Simson Center, since the Cold War, some 50 US tactical nuclear weapons have been stationed at Turkey’s Incirlik air base, approximately 100 kilometres from the Syrian border.

During the failed coup in Turkey in July, Incirlik’s power was cut, and the Turkish government prohibited US aircraft from flying in or out. Eventually, the base commander was arrested and implicated in the coup. Whether the US could have maintained control of the weapons in the event of a protracted civil conflict in Turkey is an unanswerable question, the report says.

Another source told EurActiv.com that the US-Turkey relations had deteriorated so much following the coup that Washington no longer trusted Ankara to host the weapons. The American weapons are being moved to the Deveselu air base in Romania, the source said.

[...]

EurActiv has asked the US State Department, and the Turkish and the Romanian foreign ministries, to comment. American and Turkish officials both promised to answer. After several hours, the State Department said the issue should be referred to the Department of Defense. EurActiv will publish the DoD reaction as soon as it is received.

In the meantime, NATO sent EurActiv a diplomatically worded comment which implies that allies must make sure that US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe remain “safe”.

“On your question, please check the Communiqué of the NATO Warsaw Summit (published on 9 July 2016), paragraph 53: “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. These Allies will ensure that all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective,” a NATO spokesperson wrote to EurActiv.

[...]

Strong denial by Romania

The Romanian foreign ministry strongly denied the information that the country has become home of US nukes. “In response to your request, Romanian MFA firmly dismisses the information you referred to,” a spokesperson wrote.

According to practice dating from the Cold War, leaked information regarding the presence of US nuclear weapons on European soil has never been officially confirmed. It is, however, public knowledge that Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy host US nuclear weapons.

After the failed putsch, relations between Washington and Ankara are at their worst since Turkey joined NATO in 1952. Ankara believes the US government supports the Turkish US-exiled cleric Fethullah Gülen, whom it accuses of having masterminded the failed coup. Turkey is demanding Gülen’s extradition, and the issue is expected to take center stage when US Vice President Joe Biden visits Turkey on 24 August.

Arthur H. Hughes, a retired US ambassador, wrote in EurActiv yesterday (17 August) that Gülen has indeed received considerable assistance from the CIA.

Russia has capitalised on the stained US-Turkey relations and there are fears in Western capitals that NATO-member Turkey could draw even closer to Moscow – with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan bluntly making it clear he feels let down by the United States and the European Union.

On August 19 2016 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:


That's just getting the crap beaten out of you, not voluntary submission, of course that's not good.

But the marriage itself is a way of submission. You're giving up essential freedoms that you enjoy as an individual to live in a committed relationship with strong rules. That's not unlike being a religious person at all. The simple point I'm making is just that forfeiting freedoms is essential to actually having them. Reminds me of Chesterton: