|
The Difficult Topics
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-08-2013 06:39
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
No opinion is good or bad, everyone can have one, that is what you say, isnt it?
Everyone can have one, but that doesn't mean their opinions aren't bad or wrong...
And who is the judge here? You? Or society that is based on getting the most of the others misfortune?
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 22-08-2013 09:33
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
No opinion is good or bad, everyone can have one, that is what you say, isnt it?
Everyone can have one, but that doesn't mean their opinions aren't bad or wrong...
And who is the judge here? You? Or society that is based on getting the most of the others misfortune?
Me. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-08-2013 09:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I thought so. 
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 22-08-2013 12:48
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I was just defending an athlete, when she was described as puppet, while you dont know a thing about what she thinks. She can think and say what she wants, it is only a problem for you, because you have different oppinion. No opinion is good or bad, everyone can have one, that is what you say, isnt it?
Let's pick an example, if someone tells you the Earth circles around the Moon, and the Sun around the Earth, it's his/her opinion, so you'll think it's fine to voice it because it's an opinion. Yet it'd be just plain wrong (unless you're some sort of weird creationist or something), and "society" has little to do with it. |
| |
|
|
| 547984 |
Posted on 22-08-2013 16:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5008
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Let's pick an example, if someone tells you the Earth circles around the Moon, and the Sun around the Earth, it's his/her opinion, so you'll think it's fine to voice it because it's an opinion. Yet it'd be just plain wrong (unless you're some sort of weird creationist or something), and "society" has little to do with it.
No, the terms "right" and "wrong" is still what society makes of it.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar! |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 22-08-2013 18:42
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I thought so.
In my opinion, that's how it should be. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 09-09-2013 23:12
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, the election is more or less over and Norways Labour-government for the last 8 years has been replaced with a coalition government consisting of the conservatives and the centre-right parties.
The big question now, besides who gets which minister-post, is if this will be a four(!)-party coalition... This is a coalition that during the last year hasn't been able to agree on a single thing during the election campaign.
Say hello to the new PM, Erna Solberg from Right. She has been compared to Angela Merkel and looks like they could become good friends, especially if there's a buffee nearby.
Edited by cactus-jack on 09-09-2013 23:12
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| 547984 |
Posted on 11-09-2013 03:39
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5008
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't know why I watched Obama's speech on Syria today, it just pisses me off.
Syriasly.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar! |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 15:34
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 11-09-2013 06:13
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 11-09-2013 12:34
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm not throwing my weight behind the war but that's such a stupid thing to post. You can just as easily split it into "Assad and his forces killed Syrian civilians so now we must kill Assad and his forces to stop Assad and his forces from killing Syrian civilians". Now, obviously that's boiling it down too far and taking a very one-sided view but just saying Syrians completely ignores any nuance of the situation. And there are many. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 11-09-2013 12:46
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Nah, stupid is to think that this joke is meant seriously in its depth. That meme is rather pointing out to fact that majority of american public is okay with one-sided and simplyfied views of their presidents, who know that they cant say things too complicated, or message would be lost.
I know situation in Syria is complicated. Both sides are killing people from the other side. That is called the civil war. There was also civil war in United states iirc, but there was noone that tried to solve it for them.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-09-2013 13:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I saw something on TV that really made me think about America and it's history of intervention... It was on The Last Leg (a C4 show hosted by Adam Hills, and is really very very funny)
Watch from about 10:00 onwards
America: Doing the "right" thing, in the wrong way
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 11-09-2013 13:12
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Regardless of any misbehaviour by Syrian insurgents, any head of state that knowingly engages in a civil war, plummeting the country into poverty, death, economic crisis and the disruption and destruction of civil life, with the sole purpose of protecting his own position of power, is a mad man and should be stopped.
Now when it comes to US citizens not wanting to send their young family members overseas into war, I can completely understand. Even when it comes to the US Government, or any government, one could say they have no responsibility in solving this issue.
But the biggest possible crime against humanity is committed (except for the use of a nuclear device) then nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess, no matter what.
|
| |
|
|
| Atlantius |
Posted on 11-09-2013 13:20
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6795
Joined: 21-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Video not available here...
For a large part I agree with ShortsNL. The problem is that history has shown us that USA is really crappy at choosing who to put in charge. Today it's 40 years ago the US decided to remove a democratically elected government in Chile and give them Pinochet in stead. In fact quite a lot of the regimes that have been making countries unsure the last 50 years have been American inventions because they supposedly were better than what used to be. That goes for many South American countries, Taleban, Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi and even Bin Laden.
Now we have gone into the phase where we remove the dictators we gave the power and giving the power back to the ones we didn't like 30 years ago.
We need to stop the conflict in Syria due to the use of chemical weapons, but we also need to stay completely out of the decision as to who should rule the country next...
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 11-09-2013 13:39
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
Regardless of any misbehaviour by Syrian insurgents, any head of state that knowingly engages in a civil war, plummeting the country into poverty, death, economic crisis and the disruption and destruction of civil life, with the sole purpose of protecting his own position of power, is a mad man and should be stopped.
Yes, because any government in the world would inmediately give up power when attacked by a foreign backed guerrilla. Totally.
ShortsNL wrote:
But the biggest possible crime against humanity is committed (except for the use of a nuclear device) then nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess, no matter what.
The problem is we don't know who committed that crime. And I missed the intervention over the US in '45, of course. Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians. Or the US again in Irak. Imagine a US intervention against the US?
But hey, democracy can be poisonous as well.
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 11-09-2013 14:30
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
kumazan wrote:
Yes, because any government in the world would inmediately give up power when attacked by a foreign backed guerrilla. Totally.
Really? Ugh. First of all, enough with the sarcastic tone, or I won't bother discussing with you at all. Secondly, you're putting words in my mouth. I do not have the opinion that you're trying to portray me with. Third, your statement is filled with assumpions and implications.
The civil war did not start with an attack on the Syrian government, or any attack at all for that matter. The civil war was caused by Assad's violent suppression of the civil protests during the Arab Spring.
The insurgents in Syria are not one united front. The various groups do not share one organization, ideology, goal, or mutual list of allies. You therefore cannot possibly say a 'foreign backed guerilla'. In fact, Assad is backed equally by foreign powers, in the form of Russia and Hezbollah.
Finally, in the face of any angry mass civil protest that spirals out of control, the head of state can make the decision at any point to say 'enough is enough' and resign in order to prevent the massacre from growing further. Assad has not done this and has knowingly continued up to this day.
kumazan wrote:
The problem is we don't know who committed that crime. And I missed the intervention over the US in '45, of course. Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians. Or the US again in Irak. Imagine a US intervention against the US?
But hey, democracy can be poisonous as well.
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops? Also, you are implying that I said the US should intervene with a military strike. I did not, I said nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess.
For what it's worth, I think the current proposed solution (which does NOT involve a military strike) of Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons is a very good one, but the burden of proof should lie on his side in this case.
Edited by ShortsNL on 11-09-2013 14:32
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-09-2013 14:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
Finally, in the face of any angry mass civil protest that spirals out of control, the head of state can make the decision at any point to say 'enough is enough' and resign in order to prevent the massacre from growing further. Assad has not done this and has knowingly continued up to this day.
The problem here is that Assad still has a large support base inside Syria. Large parts of the country still support him, hence his ability to continue to resit the various rebel groups. Without such support Assad would have no military to use and would have lost power a long time ago.
The comparison must be drawn with other Arab Spring nations. You look at Egypt, where Mubarak only withdrew after losing the military. Gadaffi only lost out with international intervention, and a decrease in his own military control. You can also look at places like Bahrain where there is enough support and military power to stay ontop of the protests, which do still continue.
ShortsNL wrote:
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops? Also, you are implying that I said the US should intervene with a military strike. I did not, I said nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess.
For what it's worth, I think the current proposed solution (which does NOT involve a military strike) of Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons is a very good one, but the burden of proof should lie on his side in this case.
It's not about odds. Without proof the UN cannot sanction any international intervention under it's own articles. Currently there is no proof, otherwise action would have been taken.
The argument then is whether other nations do have a responsibility. Assad clearly has some support, so do you side with those united under Assad or for one (and you can only back one) of the factions opposing him.
The burden of proof has to lie with those considering intervention. Assad has "proved" that he didn't use chemical weapons, and that simply is saying that he has none. How do you show a lack of something?
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 11-09-2013 14:43
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Nah, stupid is to think that this joke is meant seriously in its depth.
Ah OK, my apologies. Once you take the humour out of a joke, it's very difficult to tell if it is one or not. |
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 11-09-2013 14:56
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
kumazan wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
Edited by acac on 12-09-2013 13:15
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 11-09-2013 15:03
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
ShortsNL wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
So all the Palestinian deaths were terrorists...? |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
