Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 34 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 98% |
Arguments: | 26 |
Debates: | 2 |
---I'm not an expert though, I've only briefly talked about it, if you're interested I'm sure you can research it.
I did have a look, and if it's not about the weapons, the general opinion seems to be that it's about petrol.
---Well I can understand that, but the entire idea of democracy is that the leaders follow what the people want, while acting as a mediating check over extreme opinions. But, if an extremist government stems from an extremist population, then that could lead to problems in the world as a whole. It's an inerrant risk of nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it unless it starts to become likely.
This is what OWS are protesting against, since the leaders are not following what the people want, but what lobbies want.
About extremist governments, the racist far right parties seem to be "growing" where I live (France and UK). But is it really because they represent the people? How much does a government or political party represent if half the people don't even vote?
Lastly, sorry to go back on this again, but once Hitler was in power, I don't think the people really agreed with his decisions. Think it was more a case of "you don't have a choice".
Not saying that it is likely or making a case that it's about to happen or anything like that, but a World War III would be disastrous not only because wars are disastrous generally, not only because World War I and II were disastrous, but because nations today (as opposed to 1945) have weapons that are hugely more "powerful", and more of them.
If 4 kids fight, that's a shame, but if they fighting with machine guns?
----What code of honor are you talking about?
Respecting the enemy, and in particular, a dead human being. (i.e. not videoing yourself, in fact, including without video and photos, pissing on a dead human being)
---It's what you implied. Why else would "military code" matter to your argument?
I implied transcendence?
tran·scen·dent (trn-sndnt)
adj.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).
3. Philosophy
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.
No, I did not.
---I don't see why. It was showing that some cultures use urine in torture, countering your statement that all societies "respect enemies".
Torture a) is a specific situation within war b) does not concern a dead human being and is therefore off topic. c) anyone can pick one example of anything, it's easy. Example : http://youtu.be/6l5R_wELf8E The scandal about the Israelian soldier posing with prisoners. "A former Israeli soldier has posted photos on the internet of herself posing beside bound and blindfolded Palestinian prisoners. She entitled the facebook page as, "the best days of my life". "
Regardless, Chinese society and culture is one of the cultures that respects enemies and "warriors" the most. If you're not Chinese, or don't live in China, you could yourself look up famous Chinese authors and thinkers, from the attitude of martial artists (warriors) such as Ip Man to thinkers such as Confucius.
---If they committed a crime they ought to be prosecuted. As I said before, I am not trying to convince anybody about the legality of their actions, rather on its moral implications.
What do you think laws are based on if not morals in the first place?
And why did you bring this up in the first place then, while indenting "this" :
----I am quite certain that, in this country, such an act is illegal.
----And I have successfully counter argued each of your points.
oO You want a run down of the conversation?
Great thing about this (as opposed to an oral discussion) is that we can go back and check ;)
---Not obvious to me. Do you deny that the Chinese are a culture?
I deny that the Chinese culture (as you stated) is one that does not respect fundamental ethical codes that are common to most if not all cultures present and past.
I'd also point out that you're grasping for sophistic arguments.
Exactly, so if Germany can go from being a democratic country to a dictatorship and back (and leading the European Union), what's to prevent any other country from doing the same?
So if Iran became "democratic" and all that, would it then be ok for it to develop nuclear weapons?
And how to justify that these countries (USA, France, UK, Israel etc) have those weapons, when for all we know, they might be dictatorships in 15 years?
----USA - All constitutional changes have to go through congress, which isn't chosen by the party in power.
----UK - All constitutional changes have to be approved by Parliament, chosen at a local level
In France there are similar "rules". Yet it is possible for a newly elected President (or party) to make a new constitution.
I would assume given enough popular support (for example as established through a referendum) that the rules in which the American and British government evolve can be changed, even structurally.
It wouldn't make sense to believe that any rule that makes up how a government operates and/or is organised is "there to stay for ever". Know what I mean?
Example :
On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled at the Kroll Opera House under turbulent circumstances. Ranks of SA men served as guards inside the building, while large groups outside opposing the proposed legislation shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving members of parliament.[130] The position of the Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive. After Hitler verbally promised party leader Ludwig Kaas that President von Hindenburg would retain his power of veto, Kaas announced the Centre Party would support the Enabling Act. Ultimately, the Enabling Act passed by a vote of 441–84, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.[131]
----Military code is not based upon some transcendent thought, but upon the same societally/religiously-induced morality which tells you that urinating on a corpse is bad.
Then why in all societies, all religiously induced morality related cultures, or not, from 2000 years ago to today, from Scottish tribesmen to Japanese Samurai do we find that code of honour?
Not that it is necessarily based upon "some transcendent thought". That's not what I said or meant.
---Too bad Chinese society doesn't tell them that. Just click the link and run a search for "urine" (ctrl+f, in case you didn't know).
I'll ignore that.
----Am I breaking the law if I commit a legal act in another country, despite that act being illegal in my own?
You're assuming that it's "legal" to desecrate dead human beings in Afghanistan.
---I did in my first argument.
Where? I've contested every single one of your points.
Except the "let's point figures at the Chinese" one, for obvious reasons.
If a fascist government were democratically elected, it could change the constitution, it could change how things work, and it could therefore get rid of that rule you speak of (whether it's true or not, I don't even know).
---Also, the UK has nuclear weapons, 9 countries in total.
I included the UK, oh, no you're right, just double checked and didn't.
That was typo/omission, sorry and thanks :)
|