by CH86 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:30 pm
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:Cynic Hero 86 wrote:FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
I do hope you do "go after" cancerous organs (cancerous tissue IN organs) in your body when they're identified, as opposed to giving them "sovereign rights".
..yeah, that's a bit flippant, and an overstretched analogy, but no "ruler" or "so-called sovereign leader" should EVER feel absolutely safe from being whacked by a more powerful "outlander".
It's a cultural thing with me. My people have no problem raiding and punishing neighbors for being "really naughty".
..though, we tend not to do it much, unless the neighbors are cousins who understand the subtleties of raids and headman stomping.
Defense against enemy attack is legitimate, however Assad has not attacked anyone outside of Syria's borders. The concept of sovereignty is that nations can do whatever they want within their borders as long as they do not endanger the independence or existence of other nations.
That may be YOUR concept of sovereignty, but that is not the accepted (utilized) definition of the concept. Your concept is rather "adolescent", shall we say. It's grasped at as a defense by those who'd rather stay out too late on a weeknight.
"Sovereignty" is an ad hoc concept. To some, sovereignty is much like "personal space", or "personhood" (corporation). A "threatening" person can, and will, be "taken out", regardless of their "personal sovereignty" by those interested in not having a threatening person in the vicinity.
I would respectfully suggest that you not base your policies on definitions that are "wishes and hopes". It would be lovely, or horrific, if the world actually worked according to your personal definitions of things, but it doesn't, so policies based on non-agreed-to definitions are inherently flawed, and produce wild unintended consequences, of course.
Now, NOT smacking down some threatening person in ones vicinity is also a legitimate choice! It may very well be wiser to not whack them. That is up to history to decide, not me or any other person.
..we can all make our case for how some situation should be handled, but we really should "MAKE A CASE" instead of simply claiming "absolute definitional certainty/superiority" (which is just a variation of "appeal to authority").
Come on, dude! You know this stuff!
Aloha! <shaka nui!>
OK, fish I guess I have to use a past example from our own country's history to get you to understand. Not the last crisis, WW2 or its origins, but the crisis era before that, the civil war. Simply Put the Civil War between north and south wouldn't have happened at all had prophet generation idealists simply respected the law, and the slaveholders rights under the law. Instead abolitionists rammed their preferences down the south's throat, that is what caused the war. Just Think about that over 600,000 military dead, several hundred thousand civilian dead, several hundred thousands more dead from famine and disease, probably a million or two wounded. Casualties so high that even when the NEXT crisis war, WW2 came and had IT'S final butchers bill (American casualties only), it was less than the levels of the civil war, not just regarding percentage in population but even in absolute numbers. Just think that all of that could have been avoided if idealists simply respected the rule of law. Idealists like today's boomer ideologues are inherently selfish. Non-boomers and non-ideologues understand that without Laws, there is no civilization.
[quote="FishbellykanakaDude"][quote="Cynic Hero 86"][quote="FishbellykanakaDude"]
I do hope you do "go after" cancerous organs (cancerous tissue IN organs) in your body when they're identified, as opposed to giving them "sovereign rights".
..yeah, that's a bit flippant, and an overstretched analogy, but no "ruler" or "so-called sovereign leader" should EVER feel absolutely safe from being whacked by a more powerful "outlander".
It's a cultural thing with me. My people have no problem raiding and punishing neighbors for being "really naughty".
..though, we tend not to do it much, unless the neighbors are cousins who understand the subtleties of raids and headman stomping.[/quote]
Defense against enemy attack is legitimate, however Assad has not attacked anyone outside of Syria's borders. The concept of sovereignty is that nations can do whatever they want within their borders as long as they do not endanger the independence or existence of other nations.[/quote]
That may be YOUR concept of sovereignty, but that is not the accepted (utilized) definition of the concept. Your concept is rather "adolescent", shall we say. It's grasped at as a defense by those who'd rather stay out too late on a weeknight.
"Sovereignty" is an ad hoc concept. To some, sovereignty is much like "personal space", or "personhood" (corporation). A "threatening" person can, and will, be "taken out", regardless of their "personal sovereignty" by those interested in not having a threatening person in the vicinity.
I would respectfully suggest that you not base your policies on definitions that are "wishes and hopes". It would be lovely, or horrific, if the world actually worked according to your personal definitions of things, but it doesn't, so policies based on non-agreed-to definitions are inherently flawed, and produce wild unintended consequences, of course.
Now, NOT smacking down some threatening person in ones vicinity is also a legitimate choice! It may very well be wiser to not whack them. That is up to history to decide, not me or any other person.
..we can all make our case for how some situation should be handled, but we really should "MAKE A CASE" instead of simply claiming "absolute definitional certainty/superiority" (which is just a variation of "appeal to authority").
Come on, dude! You know this stuff! :)
Aloha! <shaka nui!>[/quote]
OK, fish I guess I have to use a past example from our own country's history to get you to understand. Not the last crisis, WW2 or its origins, but the crisis era before that, the civil war. Simply Put the Civil War between north and south wouldn't have happened at all had prophet generation idealists simply respected the law, and the slaveholders rights under the law. Instead abolitionists rammed their preferences down the south's throat, that is what caused the war. Just Think about that over 600,000 military dead, several hundred thousand civilian dead, several hundred thousands more dead from famine and disease, probably a million or two wounded. Casualties so high that even when the NEXT crisis war, WW2 came and had IT'S final butchers bill (American casualties only), it was less than the levels of the civil war, not just regarding percentage in population but even in absolute numbers. Just think that all of that could have been avoided if idealists simply respected the rule of law. Idealists like today's boomer ideologues are inherently selfish. Non-boomers and non-ideologues understand that without Laws, there is no civilization.