This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Kony 2012 - 4/20 Anyone?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Patty
You know forget it. You people are blinded with emotions to see the reason. Why did everyone cheer when Arab Spring happened? Because, this was the example of power of people. That is what I am talking about. And yet, here you tell me that it is OK to be afraid. We have seen that people can change things, if they unite over common cause. Can't you see contradiction in your words? You give me examples of people killed and tortured by regimes, I give you examples of people who defeated their regimes. Does it mean all of us are correct?
No, it means that situations of repression aren't binary in nature. This is all I'm going to say on the matter.
Post by
HoleofArt
You know forget it. You people are blinded with emotions to see the reason.
Tell me- if there had been no schooling available to teach your friend how to read, how would she have proved she was smart enough for MIT? What if there was a school, but by going there there was a good chance she would be labeled as a &*!@# and a traitor, and subjected to violence? Would she still have made that decision?
If foreign corporations hadn't been able to set up shop in your country- possibly because the government didn't allow it, or because the unstable political violence made it a poor choice to invest in, how could your father have gotten a job at one?
And for either of those people, were they risking death, rape, torture, to achieve their goals? Would your father have been lazy if he had refused to look for a better job because it was illegal and if he had been found out they would have come and shot your mother and you in the head?
And, you never did answer my questions about how someone is supposed to organize a resistance when there is no educational system to teach them to read or write
lol, you still haven't answered these.
There isn't emotion in ElhonnaDS argument, just in her disbelief that you're this narrow minded about the world. You're clearly a fan of a self-made man ideology, but that doesn't work at all in certain parts of the world. Many African countries don't have the resources available to even
begin becoming
successful. How do you expect these people to defend themselves against modern militaries (you do know what kind of weapons modern militaries have right?) when many are uneducated, malnourished, and divided? You have such unrealistically high expectations, and if they fail to meet your ridiculous expectations, you label them as lazy and deserving of their treatment.
You give me examples of people killed and tortured by regimes, I give you examples of people who defeated their regimes.
Uniting as a people will only get you so far. Your examples of people who defeated their regimes on their own don't hold water in modern times. It's impossible with WMDs, aircrafts, automatic weapons, and any other weapon developed in the last 40 years.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Hmm, just for fun, I read up on the Arab Spring thoroughly. The Wikipedia article
here
says that one of the most important factors was a rise in standard of living, access to education and higher education, and increased literacy rates. It's almost as if the example you use makes my case- that certain levels of education and access to a certain amount of resources were necessary for these people to finally overthrow their leaders. Kind of like how I said it, except this information came from your examples. So, if these countries hadn't had an increase in education, literacy and resources, it's probable they never would have pulled this off. It also seems to indicate that WikiLeaks (a non-profit)'s release of US information may have been the spark that helped ignite it.
In terms of the other revolutions you discussed, some of them took place before modern technology and weaponry made the fight so uneven. It's much easier to bridge the gap between a pitchfork and a musket, or sword, or even a revolver, than to bridge the gap between that and an AK-47. The others occurred in countries as a result of improved literacy, increased access to the outside world, and a growing unrest by the educated masses.
i'm not saying that it didn't take courage, or determination, for people to overthrow these repressive regimes. But it's not always a case of "Where there's a will, there's a way." There will always need to be resources, opportunity, communications, etc. that allow those with the will to actually be successful. And not everyone has access to that right now. And as military technology improves, a civilian population will need more and more in terms of physical and informational support in order to do that, and it has to come from somewhere.
I appreciate that you keep using examples that are making my point, but I would imagine that it would be frustrating to you.
@Hole- those questions have been repeated like 4 times now. He's seen them. He won't answer them because he can't. Any answer he gives either proves that he's wrong or proves that he's completely disconnected from reality.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Sorry, I didn't properly link the other thread, so I'll just quote some relevant stuff.
Edit:
Link
for context.
My country has the same president for almost two decades. But, I still love it that way. I have nothing against it. There are problems, everyone knows about them, but no one complains about their civil rights suppression.
This, wikileaks and many other cases are examples where free speech crosses the line between acceptable and harmful.
1. Our government does not do that, unless you present the danger to the regime. Yet. So, if we keep low, we are fine.
I realise you may have tempered your views since that thread, but you recognise that it's far easier to collaborate with a repressive regime than to overthrow it. You even suggested that leaking confidential information about repressive regimes (as wikileaks has done) is the equivalent to insinuating that gay people should kill themselves.
You also suggested in that thread that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and were at best ambivalent about the overthrow of Gaddafi. Would you consider "occupying" a US army base, by attempting to break in and protest? That's precisely what
these individuals
did.
Not everyone is that successful though: popular sentiment needs to be entirely behind them and the opposing army cannot be willing to execute them. The multicides I posted can be viewed as examples of failed incursions of unarmed people against militias.
However, I don't think your position is disprovable. Every instance demonstrating a popular movement that is successful shows that people were independent, every instance where they fail is people being lazy, you oppose foreign military intervention... Do the millions of starving children fall into the lazy category? I posted a video which showed that a nut based paste saves the lives of children that do not have appropriate sustenance otherwise. Is that just causing dependence?
Oh yeah,
another instance
of someone helping their community with external support. There was another case I heard about from Chomsky where a village was rescued from poverty when they decided to murder their landlord and burn down his mansion.
Post by
MyTie
There was another case I heard about from Chomsky where a village was rescued from poverty when they decided to murder their landlord and burn down his mansion.
You have a shrine built to him, don't you. You carry a picture of him in your wallet. Whenever you think that economic freedom and personal freedom go hand in hand in any particular issue, you have to say 5 "Hail Chomskys" for forgiveness.
For the love of all that is holy, find someone above the level of "irrelevent kook" to quote.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Our government is not that bad, to be honest.
Err, here's a link from
the other thread
which says that security forces opened fire on peaceful protesters, killing hundreds of people. Granted, that may not have been a directive from the government, but the government then decided to release a statement calling them drug users. That seems slightly suspicious to me.
That is a bit over the line in terms of insulting, imo.
I laughed hard, I'm guessing that was his intention :p.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron-
1) The guy in your first example had a formal education until he was 14, was taught to read and write, and then had access to a free library to continue his education himself. This is NOT what I mean when I talk about no education.
Source
. Also, we're not talking about someone who had to face active adversity in the form of aggression or threats to his family- there was no risk in what he did. It's impressive, and he deserves the praise he's gotten, but it has nothing to do with someone with no education, and certainly nothing to do with oppressive regimes.
Nelson Mandela did a lot for his country, but what he was most successful at was garnering international attention for apartheid in South Africa. It wasn't the internal pressures that forced the appeal of apartheid. It was the economic sanctions that other countries were putting on South Africa to push the issue. Without international trade partners, their economy would have ground to a halt. And the much of the lobbying and campaigning in other countries to make this push WAS funded by human rights non-profit organizations.
Ghandi had a legal degree from London- not what I would have called an uneducated man. It allowed him to have a keen understanding of the British legal system, and its limitations. The Indian nationalist movement faced many challenges, and it's members were beaten, jailed and sometimes killed. But because of their legal roots, the occupying forces did not resort to the terrorist tactics that many dictatorships use today. Protesters would walk into a protest knowing that they might be beaten or jailed, or that they might even open fire on them. But the British weren't then going to go to their homes, abduct their wives and children and torture them. The risks were different than those faced by some other movements.
And beyond that, non-violent protest is specifically designed not to cause the most trouble to an oppressive regime, but to cause the most embarrassment. The photos and reports of British soldiers in India beating and opening fire on Indian protesters who refused to fight back cause a political s***storm at home, and many people in Britain put a lot of effort into helping end Indian occupation. This strategy counts on the fact that it will garner allies in other countries, and, in colonial situations, from the population of the country that is occupying you.
No doubt, there are many people who risk themselves for the greater good. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not those who live in terror for themselves and their families "deserve" it because they aren't as brave. What you're failing to understand, is that even if you could show me modern examples of illiterate people facing down machine guns en masse and winning the day with no outside help (which you can't), that doesn't prove your earlier statements that those who don't "deserve what they get" or are lazy. That's a moral judgement, and it's one that seems to have left the rest of the participants in this thread awestruck by your inhumanity and your callous disregard for the value of human life or for any measure of decency of human behavior above what you are forced into.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
That's a moral judgement, and it's one that seems to have left the rest of the participants in this thread awestruck by your inhumanity and your callous disregard for the
value of human life
or for any measure of decency of human behavior above what you are forced into.
What is the value of life full of suffering? My problem with your point of view is that, you promote weakness and inaction, the "It is OK to be afraid" attitude. No pain - no gain, the end justifies means, go all in. If their lives are as bad as you describe they are (which may be true or exaggeration or understatement), why not risk it all, so that future generations (including their kids) will live in better world? I agree it is a bit cruel to say that they deserve it and they are "lazy", and I may have exaggerated there, I still think the fact that people don't do anything to improve their living situations cannot be justified with "They are afraid that they will be raped, tortured and killed". Here is an example: scientists in Medieval Europe on the edge of Renaissance. All of them faced the imminent threat from the Church (almost the government on its own, back in the period), but they still continued their research despite all the obstacles. Some were burnt (Bruno), some were imprisoned (Galileo), but because of their resilience and will to continue their works, I am not writing this on piece of paper that I will strap to pigeon and send it to you.
Then I will ask again. If I were the brutal dictator ruling your country, and speaking up against me would make me violate and destroy everything you own, salt your soil, rape your wife and kids, and eventually kill you after making you watch your own relatives being killed, would you speak up against me? Because
that
is what some people face in these countries. The impossible question; are you willing to accept that your government is hurting your people, or are you willing to sacrifice yourself and possibly put your family through immense suffering and death to (probably not) try to stop it?
The Church, even as powerful as it was back during the Renaissance, did not rape, torture and kill your entire family if you did something they disagreed with. They imprisoned
you
, and tortured
you
*. To put your family through the same thing because you alone do not wish to stand such injustice is another thing entirely - and not even quite comparable.
*Exceptions have, naturally, occured, though not in the same extent as in, for example, Uganda.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
@OZ You imply one-man revolutionaries, I am talking about the uprising of masses. Thousands, ten thousands of protesters. Yes, you can kill them, you can kill their families. Then next wave, and then another wave. Soon, you will realize that you are killing off your entire population, and then what? But, before that point, I bet someone in your surroundings will realize that you are going wrong path, and take you out from inside. But, sacrifices might be unavoidable. You cannot make an omelet with breaking few eggs.
And tell me, if they know that both they and their family will be raped, tortured and killed if you they attempt to rise up - how can you honestly believe they would? People are generally not selfless enough to stand up to a regime that will kill them just because they know that the next time, or the next, people will succeed. A mass is, despite it's very mass-y appearance, still a large amount of individuals. And all those individuals will be scared for their lives, and their families' lives.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm going to let it go OZ. I've combated every fact put up there, but to combat the attitude itself that leads to that level of willful ignorance and just...complete lack of basic humanity is, well, not something that can happen with words.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron
Those are only marginally applicable to this debate, but lets break them down anyway.
Rousseau says people are naturally neutral with a slight inclination towards good, and villains are villains because they have brain damage.
Hobbes says people are naturally evil, and as such need to be tightly controlled by a dictator.
Your argument is:
1) People who want to do something can do it, even if they will be killed for trying, if they have no resources and no information on how to do it. Not relevant to morality, just common sense.
2) People who don't do everything they can to get out of being victimized, including subject themselves to rape and torture, put their children and families in harms way, etc., deserve to be victimized because they either like it or are lazy. That's a pretty cold, ruthless thing to think, and if it falls in line with anyone's argument about human nature, it's Hobbes.
3) Outside help should not be encouraged, and charity is ineffective, and since these people "deserve" it for being "lazy," they shouldn't get outside help anyway. Again cold, ruthless, and pretty much the opposite of the idea that people should help others and be "good." So, i'd have to say this is closer to Hobbes than Rousseau again.
4)I think you might be trying to say that you believe that they should work together (which is how you're relating it to Rousseau), but you argue that only the people who are actively affected should get involved, and no one else. Which means they all need to be motivated by self-interest, and not mutual interest. So, if only people whose own self-interest should do anything to stop it, I'm thinking that's more of a Hobbes thing as well.
Our argument:
1) There are bare minimum requirements for anything to be done, in terms of materials, information, etc. Again, not related to morality at all, just common sense.
2) There is nothing wrong with people wanting to help other people who are suffering, and when people are being harmed it's wrong to blame the victims. That's kind of a principle that goes against everything Hobbes said, since it's saying we need to work together to get rid of dictators and help each other.
3) That people working together to help doesn't need to be limited by national boundaries, and that people can act to end tyranny without it being in their own self interest. Well, that's anti-Hobbes, who says we all only act in self interest.
4)That people who are evil must have some brain damage. Well, we've all been skirting the issue, but I think it's been well implied that the rest of us think that some of the cold and ruthless things you've been saying don't seem to come from a "normal" mind, so that puts us in the Rousseau camp as well.
Bottom line, relating these is a stretch. But, if we're going to say that our beliefs about the value of individual human suffering, the obligation we have to help each other, and the level of compassion we have is indicative of which camp we fall into, I'd say you had it pretty much reversed.
Also, you're arguing philosophy from TvTropes. Enough said.
Do you actually read the things you link, and try to understand them, or are you going to google and hitting "I feel lucky."
Post by
gamerunknown
Galileo
Funny story that one, you do realise he was forced to disavow his findings on penalty of death?
The entire point for there to be a mass movement is that there has to be an infrastructure in place to support it. That's what we're advocating. You seem to assume that it will arise naturally, but that any external input is not natural. Well, no system is in isolation and all revolutions are manufactured.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.