France Upholds Law That Smooths History

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I just want eternal fellowship with God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know I just felt a twinge of pity for god if he exists

[Judge Hades]

Its almost saying, "Hey Jesus, I am your number one fan! Hey, can I get you to threow a stone at me? Oh, Jesus, can you raise my dead cat back to life? That would be so wizard. Oh Jesus, can I write a gospel about you! I will make you do heat vision from your eyes so that you can put those tax collectors in their place. Yeah, that would be so k3wl! Oh Jesus..."

[Azarkon]

Umm so now it's democracy's fault is it ?

 

Point out where I said this. I'm starting to get tired of your strawman arguments. If my page keeps changing, it's only because you refuse to comprehend what I'm saying, which consequently forces me to restate my point again and again from different perspectives so as to hope - but I see now in vain - that you would understand one of them.

 

The system is just that a system If you want to blame that then you may as well blame the gun that a murderer kills someone with while your at it.

 

A system is hardly a gun. I just had an argument with taks not long ago about socialism vs. capitalism. As much as we disagreed on that topic, both of us recognized the *fact* that a system is fundamental to the understanding of why a society does what it does. If all society is is the people that comprise it, then it wouldn't matter whether we are democratic, Communist, socialist, fascist, or feudal. That, of course, is bull****.

 

Yes but your principle of thought is wrong. It's not only wrong it's also counter productive to you proffesed goal. All you end up doing with your mass blame is turing the more moderate members of society into the very thing you are trying to avoid. Your always talking about learning from the past.  Well didnt the treaty of versalises teach you anything?

 

You're still arguing with your straw man. The Treaty of Versailles was about blaming a people through reparation payments and did little, if anything, to change the system. It is far from representative of what I'm arguing for.

[Blank]

If somebody had a belief that was very strange but their actions were only good, why would that disgust you? it disgusts you because they are doing good for reasons they believe to be good?

Its almost saying, "Hey Jesus, I am your number one fan! Hey, can I get you to threow a stone at me? Oh, Jesus, can you raise my dead cat back to life?

i have a close christian friend who prays for persecution so that he can glorify God more.

 

edit: i edited my post previous to this one, and thought it said something i wanted you to read...

 

double edit: i will step away for now for the sake of the forum. if you would like a parting jab at me, or just to continue the debate, the PM system is ideal for these purposes.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Point out where I said this.  I'm starting to get tired of your strawman arguments.  If my page keeps changing, it's only because you refuse to comprehend what I'm saying, which consequently forces me to restate my point again and again from different perspectives so as to hope - but I see now in vain - that you would understand one of them.

 

A system is hardly a gun.  I just had an argument with taks not long ago about socialism vs. capitalism.  As much as we disagreed on that topic, both of us recognized the *fact* that a system is fundamental to the understanding of why a society does what it does.  If all society is is the people that comprise it, then it wouldn't matter whether we are democratic, Communist, socialist, fascist, or feudal.  That, of course, is bull****.

 

You're still arguing with your straw man.  The Treaty of Versailles was about blaming a people through reparation payments and did little, if anything, to change the system.  It is far from representative of what I'm arguing for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You said the system is to blame. The system we all live under is a democratic system. What this shows is the system is just that its a tool it's not inherently anything. Because what your saying is based on how you would like things to work , I've pointed out time and time again and given evidence on why how you want things to be and reality are two very different things.

 

Except even within those catogories there was difference. Just because a society is capitalist you cant know what it will do.

 

Oh I think you will find that the system the Germans lived under in 1918 was very different to the one of 1945. Therefore it changed the system it just didnt change it for the better. All it did was piss the Germans off to the extent that they would follow a man who promised them he would restore their pride an dignity. If that wasnt taken away in the first place then much of the platform that Hitler stood on would have been ignored.

 

Which is what I've been trying to get you to comprehend all along.

Edited December 3, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[SteveThaiBinh]

On the question of collective guilt: Link.

 

If a society has guilt, then should it be punished or make reparations? You could argue that the reparations forced on the Germans at Versailles were both justified and utterly disastrous in their outcomes. A problem with collective punishment is that even if you accept that there are some guilty members of society, perhaps enough to make the whole system guilty, you cannot impose a punishment without also harming the innocent. In the case of a murder committed by one of identical twins, without any way of knowing which is the guilty one, both are released, because it's better to let the guilty get away than to risk punishing an innocent party.

 

Who decides whether a country is guilty or not? Foreign commentators? Historians? Perhaps democracy is the key, and only members of a society can judge the innocence and guilt of their own system. I believe that my country owes a debt to the people of our former colonies, because of the crimes committed by my fellow countrymen a hundred or more years ago. That's my choice, and I might try to persuade others to share it and take action upon it, but I don't see how a verdict of guilt, or a punishment, could be imposed from an outside source.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

On the question of collective guilt: Link.

 

If a society has guilt, then should it be punished or make reparations?  You could argue that the reparations forced on the Germans at Versailles were both justified and utterly disastrous in their outcomes.  A problem with collective punishment is that even if you accept that there are some guilty members of society, perhaps enough to make the whole system guilty, you cannot impose a punishment without also harming the innocent.  In the case of a murder committed by one of identical twins, without any way of knowing which is the guilty one, both are released, because it's better to let the guilty get away than to risk punishing an innocent party.

 

Who decides whether a country is guilty or not?  Foreign commentators?  Historians?  Perhaps democracy is the key, and only members of a society can judge the innocence and guilt of their own system.  I believe that my country owes a debt to the people of our former colonies, because of the crimes committed by my fellow countrymen a hundred or more years ago.  That's my choice, and I might try to persuade others to share it and take action upon it, but I don't see how a verdict of guilt, or a punishment, could be imposed from an outside source.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Collective guilt will always do more harm than good thats why I dont believe in it

 

When it lasts beyond the lifetimes of the people involved it becomes even more dangerous.

[Judge Hades]

No need for a parting jab, Blank. I am not a Christian, I will never be a Christian, and I don't have a problem with a Christian believing in Christianity as long he isn't preaching it at me.

 

I have studied religion, from Hindu to Chrstianity, from Islam to Bhuddism. I have come to the conclusion that not a single one of them is right nor a single one of them is wrong. I only have a particular dislike of Christianity because I am around it the most and there are Christians here that just will not leave me along. They just don't get it that I think God is a rat bastard and we have the evidence right in front of us to prove it.

 

I don't think you or your friend are wrong in believing in God or worshipping Jesus Christ as the Savior. I think God Himself is wrong and I have no problem telling that to His face.

[Azarkon]

You said the system is to blame. The system we all live under is a democratic system. What this shows is the system is just that its a tool it's not inherently anything.  Because what your saying is based on how you would like things to work , I've pointed out time and time again and given evidence on why how you want things to be and reality are two very different things.

 

Except even within those catogories there was difference. Just because a society is capitalist you cant know what it will do.

 

First of all, we don't "all live" under a democratic system. Nor did we "all live" under a democratic system during WW2. Hitler's war was a war AGAINST democracies - that was one of the fundamental tenets of Fascism, which rejected democracies as being ineffective and weak.

 

Secondly, democracy describes only one aspect of the system (its political system), but even democracy is not just a tool. It's hardly a matter of how I want things to work. Even the most diehard critic of democracy will tell you that democratic institutions are a safeguard against tyranny. Even the most diehard critics of capitalism will tell you that capitalist societies operate very different from (actually) communist ones. Today, with all these talks about the differences between democracies vs. dictatorships, I can't believe you would claim that it's merely a tool and not inherently anything.

 

Third of all, capitalism again only describes one aspect of the system, which is the reason you can't know what capitalist societies will do because you haven't considered the other aspects such as the political, cultural, ideological, and social principles of a nation. All the aspects combined together is what I call a "system", and in understanding the "system," you also understand the nation.

 

Oh I think you will find that the system the Germans lived under in 1918 was very different to the one of 1945. Therefore it changed the system it just didnt change it for the better. All it did was piss the Germans off to the extent that they would follow a man who promised them he would restore their pride an dignity.

 

Which again shows how little you know about the interim between WW1 and WW2. WW1 changed very little of what Germany was. The Kaiser and his cohorts were kicked out of the government. Other than that, very few things changed: the Army and its old-school martial generals were retained; the big companies were retained; the militarism, the anti-Semitism, the political parties, the country's bureaucracy and philosophy - all unchanged. What ended up happening was that Hitler used these existing staples of German society as the basis of his rise to power. Nazi Germany stood on four pillars: Hitler and his cohorts, the political philosophy of Fascism/Nazism, the Army that for the large part supported him due to his promises of expanded military spending and glory, and the big businesses that had little regards for morality in conduct. Without any one of these, history would've been very different.

 

Consequently, two out of those four pillars are currently in operation in America (big businesses & a military with a long martial tradition), which explains why we like to fight wars so much. Fortunately, neither Hitler nor Fascism are currently in vogue in America, or else we'd be in real trouble.

[Azarkon]

On the question of collective guilt: Link.

 

If a society has guilt, then should it be punished or make reparations?  You could argue that the reparations forced on the Germans at Versailles were both justified and utterly disastrous in their outcomes.  A problem with collective punishment is that even if you accept that there are some guilty members of society, perhaps enough to make the whole system guilty, you cannot impose a punishment without also harming the innocent.  In the case of a murder committed by one of identical twins, without any way of knowing which is the guilty one, both are released, because it's better to let the guilty get away than to risk punishing an innocent party.

 

Who decides whether a country is guilty or not?  Foreign commentators?  Historians?  Perhaps democracy is the key, and only members of a society can judge the innocence and guilt of their own system.  I believe that my country owes a debt to the people of our former colonies, because of the crimes committed by my fellow countrymen a hundred or more years ago.  That's my choice, and I might try to persuade others to share it and take action upon it, but I don't see how a verdict of guilt, or a punishment, could be imposed from an outside source.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reparation payments are simply irresponsible punishments. We need to make a distinction here between what I'm arguing for, which is the extent of Crime, and what reparation payments are, which is Punishment. Crime and punishment are two facets of a justice system; when combined well, they form justice. When either become misguided, the result is disastrous.

 

Reparation payments fail as a form of punishment because it does not *change* the system, merely makes the system pay for what it's done. When a society *can* pay this reparation, it may learn a lesson about what not to do next time. But when a society *cannot* pay the reparation, as was the case in Germany after American investors pulled out due to the Depression, then bitterness and resentment rises. This is like in real life: if I punish you by making you pay $500 when you speed, you'll think twice before speeding. If I punish you by making you pay three times your life's savings for a crime, then I've basically destroyed your chances at happiness, and as a result you will turn against me and my unfair punishment.

 

Much better than reparation payments are pressures to reform the system, which is what I advocate.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

First of all, we don't "all live" under a democratic system.  Nor did we "all live" under a democratic system during WW2.  Hitler's war was a war AGAINST democracies - that was one of the fundamental tenets of Fascism, which rejected democracies as being ineffective and weak. 

 

Secondly, democracy describes only one aspect of the system (its political system), but even democracy is not just a tool.  It's hardly a matter of how I want things to work.  Even the most diehard critic of democracy will tell you that democratic institutions are a safeguard against tyranny.  Even the most diehard critics of capitalism will tell you that capitalist societies operate very different from (actually) communist ones.  Today, with all these talks about the differences between democracies vs. dictatorships, I can't believe you would claim that it's merely a tool and not inherently anything.

 

Third of all, capitalism again only describes one aspect of the system, which is the reason you can't know what capitalist societies will do because you haven't considered the other aspects such as the political, cultural, ideological, and social principles of a nation.  All the aspects combined together is what I call a "system", and in understanding the "system," you also understand the nation.

 

Oh I think you will find that the system the Germans lived under in 1918 was very different to the one of 1945. Therefore it changed the system it just didnt change it for the better. All it did was piss the Germans off to the extent that they would follow a man who promised them he would restore their pride an dignity.

 

Which again shows how little you know about the interim between WW1 and WW2. WW1 changed very little of what Germany was. The Kaiser and his cohorts were kicked out of the government. Other than that, very few things changed: the Army and its old-school martial generals were retained; the big companies were retained; the militarism, the anti-Semitism, the political parties, the country's bureaucracy and philosophy - all unchanged. What ended up happening was that Hitler used these existing staples of German society as the basis of his rise to power. Nazi Germany stood on four pillars: Hitler and his cohorts, the political philosophy of Fascism/Nazism, the Army that for the large part supported him due to his promises of expanded military spending and glory, and the big businesses that had little regards for morality in conduct. Without any one of these, history would've been very different.

 

Consequently, two out of those four pillars are currently in operation in America (big businesses & a military with a long martial tradition), which explains why we like to fight wars so much. Fortunately, neither Hitler nor Fascism are currently in vogue in America, or else we'd be in real trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We have been a democracy for a long time now.

 

Have to admit he's got a point though don't you. Democracies can be both ineffective and weak.

 

Well thats the theory except when some outside force pushes the people as a whole to an extreme which is exactly what happened in the run up to WWII. You will see it today as well, when unemployment goes up and immigration goes up the support that fringe parties get goes up.

 

It is a tool you can have a benevolent dictatorship just as you can have an aggressive elected official.

 

Well thats a nice theory but having listened to you go on for the last several pages I dont think you understand Japan or Germany.

 

Yes because that was part of restoring national pride. If the terms following WWI were not so severe there would not have been the backlash that there was.

The whole collective guilt and lets punish all of Germany (which you believe is a good idea) is what led to it. Ordinary people who would have been happy being moderate were pushed into the arms of the Nazi's.

 

You fight a lot of wars because you are a super power. You are in fact now the only super power. Which means your in a catch 22. On one hand you have half the world begging for your intervention because someone is picking on them. And the other half (the ones who are doing the picking) resenting you for it.

 

Since your such a big fan of changing systems you must love George Bush and his policy of regime change. The aim of which is to do what you claim will make the world a better place because it will go around changing the systems of various countries.

Edited December 3, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[SteveThaiBinh]

Reparation payments are simply irresponsible punishments.  We need to make a distinction here between what I'm arguing for, which is the extent of Crime, and what reparation payments are, which is Punishment.  Crime and punishment are two facets of a justice system; when combined well, they form justice.  When either become misguided, the result is disastrous. 

Can you have crime without punishment and still call it justice? Perhaps you can have guilt, so long as there's also a means of discharging the guilt (which you propose to be changing the system that led to the actions that caused the guilt to exist).

Reparation payments fail as a form of punishment because it does not *change* the system, merely makes the system pay for what it's done.  When a society *can* pay this reparation, it may learn a lesson about what not to do next time.  But when a society *cannot* pay the reparation, as was the case in Germany after American investors pulled out due to the Depression, then bitterness and resentment rises.  This is like in real life: if I punish you by making you pay $500 when you speed, you'll think twice before speeding.  If I punish you by making you pay three times your life's savings for a crime, then I've basically destroyed your chances at happiness, and as a result you will turn against me and my unfair punishment.

 

Much better than reparation payments are pressures to reform the system, which is what I advocate.

So reparations (the speeding fine) are effective so long as they are not disproportionate or seen as unjust. In the context of international affairs, unlike with traffic violations, reparations may always be seen as unjust.

 

So, societies can have guilt, but that does not entail an obligation to make reparations, either in the form of apologies or money. The only obligation is to reform the society so the 'crimes' of the past are never repeated. With reparations out of the picture, collective guilt in this form is less likely to cause harm, and more likely to provoke positive reflection. Perhaps you and ShadowPaladin are edging toward agreement?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So reparations (the speeding fine) are effective so long as they are not disproportionate or seen as unjust.  In the context of international affairs, unlike with traffic violations, reparations may always be seen as unjust.

 

So, societies can have guilt, but that does not entail an obligation to make reparations, either in the form of apologies or money.  The only obligation is to reform the society so the 'crimes' of the past are never repeated.  With reparations out of the picture, collective guilt in this form is less likely to cause harm, and more likely to provoke positive reflection.  Perhaps you and ShadowPaladin are edging toward agreement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The speeding fine anology dosnt work though in the context of collective guilt.

 

If I speed and I get fined $500 fair enough I did the crime I'll pay the fine.

 

What would happen under collective guilt is all motorists would be fined just because they are motorists. In other words your punishing everyone for the crimes of a few. I couldnt really think about not speeding since I'd never speeded anyway could I ?

 

You live in the UK dont you steve ? You should therefore be very aware of just how much motorists resent being picked on merely as a source of revenue.

 

If I was fined $500 for some other motorist speeding I'd be perturbed to put it mildly.

Edited December 3, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Oh I've just thought of a better one.

 

Familiar with 2000 AD and Judge Dredd ?

 

In an alternate dimension Judge Death, Fear , Fire and Mortice had a revelations.

 

All crimes are commited by the living(hard to argue with that). So they killed everyone. Now thats collective punishment in action.

 

Since everyone was guilty of being alive and the living were commiting crimes they were collectively guilty.

[Judge Hades]

Nuke the site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure. (w00t)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Nuke the site from orbit.  That's the only way to be sure.  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Judge Hades.

[Musopticon?]

 

I'm so going to call him that from this point on.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Azarkon]

Can you have crime without punishment and still call it justice?  Perhaps you can have guilt, so long as there's also a means of discharging the guilt (which you propose to be changing the system that led to the actions that caused the guilt to exist). 

 

There is justice, but it does not come in the form of reparations. In the ideal case, if a system messes up big time (ie WW2) then we, the rest of the world, should go in and change the system - forcibly, if necessary. This is what happened in Germany and Japan after WW2 - we ensured that they implemented institutional changes to their societies. Of course, this is no panacea; the trick is to do so without making said states feel that they are subjects and prisoners. To be honest, that's a two way road: both the victors and the losers need to cooperate. The victors to ensure that they are not exploiting the losers for their own benefits. The losers to feel enough remorse so as to see change as being necessary.

 

Course, the world is less than ideal, and in cases where the mess up is not "big time," I maintain that justice must come from within: from reformers who see the problem, and from outside pressures in the form of diplomatic negotiations.

 

So reparations (the speeding fine) are effective so long as they are not disproportionate or seen as unjust.  In the context of international affairs, unlike with traffic violations, reparations may always be seen as unjust.

 

Perhaps, but that depends on the remorsefulness of the populations in question. Like I said to SP earlier: if we adopt his policy of blaming everything on a few evil men, then it's unlikely that any society will accept any kind of blame for anything that occurs. This is the kind of attitude I want to dispel, because ultimately if we kept on acting like that society will never change for the better because no one will ever step up to the plate and admit that society, and not a few evil men, may have been the problem.

 

So, societies can have guilt, but that does not entail an obligation to make reparations, either in the form of apologies or money.  The only obligation is to reform the society so the 'crimes' of the past are never repeated.  With reparations out of the picture, collective guilt in this form is less likely to cause harm, and more likely to provoke positive reflection.  Perhaps you and ShadowPaladin are edging toward agreement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt it. SP holds fast to his ideology of it being ONLY the people, and not the system, that determines the outcome of a society. As long as that fundamental disagreement exists, there can be no agreements between us because everything I argue I argue from the perspective of a system being responsible just as much as the people. If we take out system out of the equation then there is no argument: he's right, I'm wrong, because then why would we ever blame anyone other than those directly and personally resposible? But he's not right, and I'm not wrong, precisely because this is impossible: a system and its associated institutions are instrumental to the operations of a society. Otherwise, all of the political, economic, social, and ideological theories we've developed over the past centuries are worthless and we're back to believing that "bad things happen because God/fate wills it."

 

It is a tool you can have a benevolent dictatorship just as you can have an aggressive elected official.

 

Yes but even in a benevolent dictatorship the dictator can cut off your head without your consent whereas even an aggressive elected official can be impeached so long as he doesn't change the system itself (as Hitler did). I never said that democracy was the cure-all of mankind, and I never implied that systems are not subject to the forces of history. However, when tyranny strikes it is inevitably linked to certain factors that comprise a system that is quite similar across times of crises: a tradition of militarism, a lack of cultural resistance against dictators, ethnocentrism, the lack of a free media, etc. The forces of history simply provide the triggers, such as economic depression, that set in motion what has already been there and waiting.

 

I do not believe in arbitrary chance being the driving force of crises. I don't see the crises of history as being just "conincidences" without cause, without remedy, and without the ability for us to predict. I especially don't believe this when I see consistencies in what occurs in a society that has a certain system. If I am wrong in this, then explain to me why human civilization *has* made progress since the cavemen days - if all our systems are mere tools with no real effects, how is it that we have changed?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If I am wrong in this, then explain to me why human civilization *has* made progress since the cavemen days - if all our systems are mere tools with no real effects, how is it that we have changed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because we create new tools when a need or a desire arises.

 

A tool has an effect but it's an effect that is determined by the weilder. Which is of course people.

 

Ditto with religion over the history of mankind man has created many religions to help him cope with the fear of the unknown. Religion can likewise be used for good or evil purposes, it is inherently not one or the other despite what it may profress to be.

 

You fail to see that your view is flawed.

 

Take reperations. You cant only punish the guilty with them , you cant only punish those who support the system with them.

 

In the case of slavery system is 300 years + old and the people you would be punishing are not. Therefore they could not have supported the system. You can't reflect on something that you never did.

 

Likewise all of Germany was punished for the first world war. Yet some Germans fought for other countries (ditto in the secones world war) so your punishing them for being your ally and fighting for you wow that sounds fair dosnt it.

 

Since you didnt answer the question about George I'll ask it again since he appears to share your view that changing the system is the right thing to do. So your probably a big fan of George right since his goal is to get rid of all those evil systems.

Edited December 3, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

But a system is not merely a tool, it is also the wielder. Think about it: if I create an ideology (such as slavery), it is a both a tool for me and others to deal with, say, the running of society, AND a wielder in the sense that it becomes part of how we and our children see the world, to the point where as long as slavery existed not every one was considered a human being - the slave was only 3/5ths of a human being. The world became a better a place when slavery was abolished - regardless of who wielded slavery. Yes, the worst men in a free world can still commit atrocities. But the best slaver is still systematically limited in how well he can treat his slaves (he can never, for instance, let them vote), whereas the best men in a free world are not.

 

Systems are capable of shaping our decisions and as such must be held responsible for the actions of a society. It is not the *only* factor - the wielder does matter - but it is a *critical* factor that cannot simply be dismissed as a tool that depends only on the wielder. Institutional racism, regardless of who wields it, is a negative force on society. As such, societies with institutional racism must be universally criticized. Militarism, regardless of who wields it, is again a negative force: you can't build a peaceful world when the world is filled with nations that define their "honor" through war.

 

As far as the German reparations go I already pointed out why that's not a reflection of what I desire and how it's a perversion in the sense of being about blaming a people instead of a system. The reparations did little to change the system but heaped terrible ordeals upon a people - that's not what I advocate.

 

As far as George Bush goes I'm perfectly in favor of changing the system IF IT'S FOR A BETTER SYSTEM. In this case, I don't think his proposed system is better, and therefore I don't agree with him. It's that simple.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But a system is not merely a tool, it is also the wielder.  Think about it: if I create an ideology (such as slavery), it is a both a tool for me and others to deal with, say, the running of society, AND a wielder in the sense that it becomes part of how we and our children see the world, to the point where as long as slavery existed not every one was considered a human being - the slave was only 3/5ths of a human being.  The world became a better a place when slavery was abolished - regardless of who wielded slavery.  Yes, the worst men in a free world can still commit atrocities.  But the best slaver is still systematically limited in how well he can treat his slaves (he can never, for instance, let them vote), whereas the best men in a free world are not. 

 

Systems are capable of shaping our decisions and as such must be held responsible for the actions of a society.  It is not the *only* factor - the wielder does matter - but it is a *critical* factor that cannot simply be dismissed as a tool that depends only on the wielder.  Institutional racism, regardless of who wields it, is a negative force on society.  As such, societies with institutional racism must be universally criticized.  Militarism, regardless of who wields it, is again a negative force: you can't build a peaceful world when the world is filled with nations that define their "honor" through war.

 

As far as the German reparations go I already pointed out why that's not a reflection of what I desire and how it's a perversion in the sense of being about blaming a people instead of a system.  The reparations did little to change the system but heaped terrible ordeals upon a people - that's not what I advocate.

 

As far as George Bush goes I'm perfectly in favor of changing the system IF IT'S FOR A BETTER SYSTEM.  In this case, I don't think his proposed system is better, and therefore I don't agree with him.  It's that simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually like pretty much everything slavery isnt wholly evil. It depends on what value someone places on freedom and how well you treat your slaves. "What is freedom if your only freedom is to starve". A better place ? Perhaps, it certainly meant more people below the poverty line starving.

 

If you want something a little less emotive, then zoo's are another good example Zoo's that take good care of their animals have animals that live far longer than they would in the wild. A bad zoo is little more than a torture chamber or house of horrors.

 

Again the determining factor here is people. See a pattern yet ?

 

OK so the system that George desires dosnt support Instituational rasicm ? And yet Saddams did , but your not in favour of it. BTW it's very easy to find proof of Iraqs institutional rasicm , it's also the reason they are on the verge of civil war since the minority that once held the power is no longer in power because of a democratic system .Thats why they are so eager to see democracy fail.

 

Your kind of lost though in your theory since you cant demand a system pay reperations anymore than you can demand reperations from a hammer. Any punishment would have to be exacted through the people. Since the system isnt actually an entity at all.

 

Since even you admit that punishing everyone is wrong then your system of collective guilt is doomed to failure. I've already demonstrated it's extreme outcomes which are none to pleasent.

 

Personal responsibility on the other hand dosnt have any of those flaws. It also dosnt have any of the baggage like still blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus or the Germans for Hitler or whatever ridiculous reasoning people use to justify irrational hatred.

 

You also dont appear to be against millitary action when it would suit your own purpose. Since you dont seem to be bothered about George going to war as much as you are about the system which will replace the old one. So like institutional racsim It looks like your militarism is subjective too.

Edited December 3, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm curious about something.

 

Iraqs old "system" is

 

based on institutionalised racism

millitaristic

sought to wipe out the kurds by dropping WMD's on them

tortures people

Kills the families of people who disagree with it

Wiped out a bunch of Shiites just after the last gulf war

 

So what the heck is George going to replace it with that is worse than that ?

[Nartwak]

McDonalds.

[jaguars4ever]

McDonalds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sacre Bleu!

[Judge Hades]

Shadowpaladin, it is not our place to judge or to interfere with other cultures unless they have been proven to cause us direct harm. Iraq had no way to cause any harmto US citizens on US soil. Instead of using our resources, which would have been better spent securing Afganistan and finding Osama, we could have left Iraq to the UN. Certainly the UN was overall ineffective but it did contain Saddam for the most part.