New Testingstan

RyanThunder wrote:oh, christ, you guys think i want NATO to invade iran or something, don't you?

i really hope you don't

Nope. I don't think you have such a position. My only beef right now with you is moral absolutism.

I'm not sure moral relativism is paralysis so much as pragmatism in this case

I mean the gatekeeper philosophy (thanks Baks!) actually seems rather idealistic to me

It assumes that a state can choose its allies and enemies based on how well it likes them ideologically, and will be able to exclude from the global community clubhouse any country it doesn't like on ideological grounds.

I mean what happens to the gatekeeper philosophy when, say, China becomes a superpower and doesn't give a shit whether a country is democratic or not because they're run by the CCP and don't share our assumptions about Western-style liberal democracy being the be-all and end-all of good government? Oh look now states that don't want to submit to our ideological purity test have an alternative.

Note even now the USA does not actually act like this as far as I can tell. We're just fine buddying up with Saudi Arabia and China and other states which's internal system we don't like ideologically but it is in our national interests to be on friendly terms with.

Which makes me wonder how much of "OMG Iran is an evil theocracy" is rhetoric the policy elites use to gain support among the masses for policies they follow for different reasons.

Probably almost all of it.

Politicians don't have that much influence on international policies. The real job is done either by professionnal diplomats, or by other agents with their own agenda.

Politicians in most case are only here to do PR, one way or another.

Aaron wrote:Of course it did. We're America's good little bitch.

What makes it ironic on top of disgusting is how much they were helped by the Canadian embassy in Tehran remaining open during the revolution.

Sadly, the demographics where being a "friend to Israel" is a good thing are ones he largely needs and the ones that care in the other direction he can do without.

Those folks aren't going to be around for much longer, even my 60 year old father thinks Israel is South Africa 2.0.

The embassy though, we got a bunch of Americans out during the revolution didn't we?

BTW Martin Jacques's When China Rules the World is a pretty cool book. When I first saw it I thought it might be some cryptoracist alarmist right wing shit but it's actually not like that at all, he's got a lot of interesting things to say about how the cultural background of different countries influences their modernity and the world is moving toward an era of "contested modernity" in which the West will lose its monopoly on modernity and other stuff.

Oxymoron wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:oh, christ, you guys think i want NATO to invade iran or something, don't you?

i really hope you don't

Nope. I don't think you have such a position. My only beef right now with you is moral absolutism.

I find it preferable to the toddler-like compulsion to ask 'why' recursively, until ultimately no reasoning can be found, thus leading to atrocities being about as objectively unacceptable as the colour purple. after all, its all subjective, right?

Call it an appeal to consequence, if you like.

Oxymoron wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:its almost like you think you can avoid hard decisions by simply taking the most passive approach available

Because never thinking about why you do thing sure is an active approach. Right ?

Edit : oh, wait, I get it. You were talking about yourself, right ?

Nope.

For instance, you can easily pretend to avoid having to make any decision on the question of Iran's present approach to government by simply adopting a relativist position. From your perspective there is no correct solution to the issue of governance, therefore advocating any system over another is as silly as arguing about which colour is objectively best.

Aaron wrote:Those folks aren't going to be around for much longer, even my 60 year old father thinks Israel is South Africa 2.0.

The embassy though, we got a bunch of Americans out during the revolution didn't we?

Yeah, there is a movie coming out on it this fall.

That the really sad thing, Canada falling in line with the Americans isn't even necessarily good for the Americans. There's a few times I can think of where the good offices of the Canadian government who were seen as credible because they weren't in lockstep with Washington helped the Americans out.

I'm thinking of Iran Revolution, the Suez crisis, and the Vietnam ICSC.

The other thing is that Canadian moral condemnation means jack all in real terms, especially when its seen as just falling in line with America.

RyanThunder wrote: I find it preferable to the toddler-like compulsion to ask 'why' recursively, until ultimately no reasoning can be found, thus leading to atrocities being about as objectively unacceptable as the colour purple. after all, its all subjective, right?

Call it an appeal to consequence, if you like.

"All killing is bad" = Absolutism

"But what if he's trying to kill me?"

"Well maybe it's okay then." = Relativism

Well thinking Iran should have a different government is one thing.

What I'm more skeptical of is the idea that this makes a good excuse/reason for bludgeoning them with sanctions and restrictions and shit until they get a government that is more friendly to America more ideologically acceptable to the West better. Or the idea that a government like theirs getting any serious power at all (like nukes) is something to freak out about.

Jung wrote:Well thinking Iran should have a different government is one thing.

What I'm more skeptical of is the idea that this makes a good excuse/reason for bludgeoning them with sanctions and restrictions and shit until they get a government that is more friendly to America more ideologically acceptable to the West better. Or the idea that a government like theirs getting any serious power at all (like nukes) is something to freak out about.

well we've already done it once

afghanistan was trying to play nice with the commies so we gave the "freedom fighters" missiles and cash to drive em out

Jung wrote:Well thinking Iran should have a different government is one thing.

What I'm more skeptical of is the idea that this makes a good excuse/reason for bludgeoning them with sanctions and restrictions and shit until they get a government that is more friendly to America more ideologically acceptable to the West better. Or the idea that a government like theirs getting any serious power at all (like nukes) is something to freak out about.

I can get behind that sort of skepticism.

Really, anything we do to affect their regime should be done so as to minimize the damage to the population.

The point isn't to make them subservient or anything so morally bankrupt. its to give them the opportunity to choose something better than what they presently have.

GREEN is obviously the best colour, because chlorophyll.
And if you disagree, you can go make your own fucking oxygen.

RyanThunder wrote:

Jung wrote:Well thinking Iran should have a different government is one thing.

What I'm more skeptical of is the idea that this makes a good excuse/reason for bludgeoning them with sanctions and restrictions and shit until they get a government that is more friendly to America more ideologically acceptable to the West better. Or the idea that a government like theirs getting any serious power at all (like nukes) is something to freak out about.

I can get behind that sort of skepticism.

Really, anything we do to affect their regime should be done so as to minimize the damage to the population.

The point isn't to make them subservient or anything so morally bankrupt. its to give them the opportunity to choose something better than what they presently have.

Just like Egypt chose Sharia amirite?

what hurts most about the iranian human rights issues is progress was being made in the late 90's and early 00's

there was internal reform going on and the europeans were having somewhat constructive dialog on the issue. iran admitted there was a problem (always an important step in solving any problem) and was willing to sit down and talk about it frankly with the yurps.

and then the nuclear bullshit came, which poisoned the reform potential both inside and outside iran. all discussions started to be focused on it at the expense of other important issues. the election of conservative Ahmadinejad in 2005 was in part fueled by nationalism feelings after they felt they were being pushed around and threatened by the US and to a lesser extent the EU on the nuke issues

and the ahmadinejad administration hasn't been all bad, but in many ways it has been a steping backward

and internationally the prospect of a constructive human rights agreement isn't even on the table right now which if course helps nobody at all

@Zod; eh well, since you remind me, okay, maybe the point is more to minimize human suffering

RyanThunder wrote:@Zod; eh well, since you remind me, okay, maybe the point is more to minimize human suffering

But how does one approach such a goal?

how much suffering should we cause to prevent future suffering???

if someone kills 70 people to stop a post-apocalyptic eurabia, that is an atrocity.

while if someone kills 200 000 people to bring about a hastier end to a war that is not an atrocity.

the difference between the two being that we deem the former act to be based on incorrect premises

the best part is that you can't know whether your acts actually prevented anything as any attempts to show otherwise would be untestable fanfiction

If you do something evil for the greater good, that doesn't make the act any less evil. At best, it makes it a necessary evil.

RyanThunder wrote:I find it preferable to the toddler-like compulsion to ask 'why' recursively, until ultimately no reasoning can be found, thus leading to atrocities being about as objectively unacceptable as the colour purple. after all, its all subjective, right?

Call it an appeal to consequence, if you like.

RyanThunder wrote:Nope.

For instance, you can easily pretend to avoid having to make any decision on the question of Iran's present approach to government by simply adopting a relativist position. From your perspective there is no correct solution to the issue of governance, therefore advocating any system over another is as silly as arguing about which colour is objectively best.

Whatever you think, sweety.

Don't let me stand in the way of your carefully organized and catalogued worldview.



PS :

RyanThunder wrote:The point isn't to make them subservient or anything so morally bankrupt. its to give them the opportunity to choose something better than what they presently have.

RyanThunder wrote: I find it preferable to the toddler-like compulsion to ask 'why' recursively, until ultimately no reasoning can be found, thus leading to atrocities being about as objectively unacceptable as the colour purple. after all, its all subjective, right?

Call it an appeal to consequence, if you like.

Nope.

For instance, you can easily pretend to avoid having to make any decision on the question of Iran's present approach to government by simply adopting a relativist position. From your perspective there is no correct solution to the issue of governance, therefore advocating any system over another is as silly as arguing about which colour is objectively best.

you really need to stop posting when high, i'm starting to feel some sympathetic embarrassment over here

ITT Ryan provide us a demonstration that the White Man's Burden rhetoric is still alive and strong in the subconscious of westerns populations.

Darth Tedious wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:@Zod; eh well, since you remind me, okay, maybe the point is more to minimize human suffering

But how does one approach such a goal?

I don't have enough information to say with any sort of precision what would be effective yet.

But at least I have the balls to admit that its worth doing something about, unlike these goddamned cowards who pretend everything will just be fine if left to its own devices somehow.

RyanThunder wrote:But at least I have the balls to admit that its worth doing something about, unlike these goddamned cowards who pretend everything will just be fine if left to its own devices somehow.

Once again, you fail to realize what the "cowards" are arguing, and prefer to keep living in your own fantasy rather than dealing like a grown up with alternative viewpoints.

RyanThunder wrote:

Darth Tedious wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:@Zod; eh well, since you remind me, okay, maybe the point is more to minimize human suffering

But how does one approach such a goal?

I don't have enough information to say with any sort of precision what would be effective yet.

But at least I have the balls to admit that its worth doing something about, unlike these goddamned cowards who pretend everything will just be fine if left to its own devices somehow.

jesus dude lie down until you stop tweaking