«12. . .2,1682,1692,1702,1712,1722,1732,174. . .2,5142,515»
I would actually be interested to find where people in the region stand on other instances of killing, primarily war, death penalty, self-defense, and then I suppose whether it is considered justified in any other example. I know there are mixed opinions on the death penalty, but I am not sure if we have any full-on pacifists.
It would make an interesting poll Under ledzia. It may end up having too many options, though, but I think it could be simplified by putting them on a rough scale. Something along the lines of.
When is it justified to kill another human?
------------------------------------
(1) In none of these situations/never
(2) Only in self-defense, not war or capital punishment
(3) In self-defense and certain 'just' wars, but not capital punishment
(4) In self-defense and war, but not capital punishment
(5) In self-defense, war, and capital punishment
(6) In self-defense, war, capital punishment, and defense of property
(7) In all of the above, and also other situation (Explain in RMB)
(8) Other/some other combination (Explain in RMB)
----------------------------------------------
Or people could just sound off in the RMB, though both would be fine.
Culture of Life, Phydios, and The kiwi ate a kiwi
There's a database with over 65 laws that do show direct discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis. Here's the link: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
Instead of going through all 65, here are 5 salient ones:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/ways-israeli-law-discriminates-palestinians-180719120357886.html
If Al-Jazeera is objectionable, then here's an Israeli link detailing how Arab Israelis are not equal before the law: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5166444
In international law, apartheid is a state-sanctioned regime of institutionalized and legalized racial discrimination and oppression by one hegemonic racial group against another. I've already provided evidence of Israel practicing apartheid against the Palestinians above.
Ethnic cleansing is not simply "unfortunate suffering," it's the systematic targeted killing of a population. Exhibit A: Plan Dalet, organized by Haganah, the main paramilitary organization of the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine between 1920 and 1948. As you'll see below, this is two months before the end of the Mandate, the plan being that it would seek to take over the land and expel the indigenous population by force. There is also the Deir Yassin massacre, among many others.
Regarding 1948: By February of that year, the American administration had already concluded that the UN Partition Resolution, far from being a peace plan, was proving a recipe for continued bloodshed and hostility. Therefore, it twice offered alternative schemes to halt the escalation of the conflict: a trusteeship plan for five years, in February 1948, and a three-month cease-fire, on 12 May. The Zionist leadership rejected both peace proposals out of hand.
The wish to de-Arabize Palestine formed a crucial pillar in Zionist thinking from the very first moment the movement entered onto the political stage in the form of Theodor Herzl. Ben-Gurion's thoughts on the issue were clearly articulated by 1937. His biographer Michael Bar-Zohar stated, 'In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the "Old Man" demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state.
Hello.
I also have poll authority. I can make the poll after the current one ends. And the answer for me is number 3.
Welcome! How are you doing?
Culture of Life and The kiwi ate a kiwi
That'd be swell.
If I were a betting man, I think I'd put money on #3 coming out the winner.
On populism:
I never said populists can reject the will of the people. The minimum wage example I think is getting more mileage than gas I put into it.
It is. I repeat the distinction again between writing off whatever ordinary people want from the get-go because you know better, and making a good-faith effort to give them what they need or want. Just because you followed public opinion but didn't give them 100% of what a few activists were explicitly asking for does not somehow make a populist an elitist. Protesters =/= the people. And even if the people did want a $15 minimum wage law, and you didn't give them that, it neither makes you an elitist nor unmakes you a populist. The point of being a populist is that you paid attention and tried to go from point A and get as close to point B as possible. As a generally conservative person, I'm sure you can appreciate that equality in results is never guaranteed.
I've never characterized populists in those terms. I've never said "Trump knows better than his supporters". I've just been trying to explain that populism is about understanding public opinion, not carrying out specific demands robotically. Populism is not direct democracy. Populism is a method of appeal, not an institution. If you try to give the masses what they want, in whatever form you are able or willing, you're doing what you're "supposed" to. If they asked for apples and you gave them oranges, you may still be populist in the long-run, but you may also lose the public's support. An ideologue buttresses himself with his beliefs, and a populist has only the people. If he alienates the people, he's through. But I think giving people a 30 hour work week, say, when they asked for a $15 minimum wage isn't an elitist response. You're trying your best to address the situation.
Have you seen that McDonald's meme? It's like a triangle, and the situation posed is "it's dinnertime, and the kids in the backseat are chanting McDonalds! McDonalds! McDonalds!" and the three points of the triangle are the responses of the parent who is driving: "We have food at home", "*drives up to McDonalds and orders a cup of black coffee for themself*", and "McDonalds, McDonalds, McDonalds!" The "McDonalds" echoed response is the populist, the elitist orders black coffee for himself, and the "we have food at home" could conceivably be either a paternalist or an elitist (not all elitists are created equally; some of them are technocrats, not robber barons). Idk if I just made things more confusing, but that's my attempt to explain the distinctions as simply as possible.
Yes.
Are these owners and managers, or athletes?
Who's leaving out whom?
A false equivalency. Elitism is inherently structural. You can't be an elite without power, it just doesn't make any sense. But racism is about personal attitudes, and you can absolutely discriminate against another person even if you have no individual power. That other people define racism more narrowly is no fault of mine.
Any group that holds itself as being superior to its national identity is absolutely elitist. But if you're a Target employee, and you think that all Target employees are better than Walmart employees, even if that's snobby and elitist in a general sense, it doesn't necessarily make you an Elite™ in the political sense.
I'm just explaining what populism is, not what it should be.
I think we may have finally reached an understanding haha. Yes, a person in that situation would be a populist. Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Trump; they're all super wealthy, elite people. Maybe they cared about the common person, maybe they didn't. It's the form and function of their appeals that matter, not what's in their heart.
I'm not an expert on healthcare economics, and I know that doctors are much higher in demand than other professions, so maybe it isn't the best example? But the idea that an Indian doctor gets a job in America that could have gone to a native candidate being a negative. Not that doctors are being well-compensated generally, but it's still a negative I think. And I would argue that the more candidates you have, the more downward pressure that will have on wages. Again, are doctors starving on the streets? No, but it is still something of a failure of the government to look after its own citizens.
I just think economic migration is always disruptive (and therefore negative) for all countries involved, regardless of what their skill level is. An exception would be something like Operation Paperclip after WWII.
In the context of populism, I would say it's irrelevant. If there is no concrete public opinion one way or another towards food or car safety regulation, then populism isn't really going to come into play. Populism isn't an ideology, so it's not going to give you answers to everything. It's more of a means to and end, rather than the end itself.
I'm not sure I follow, because I've never (intentionally) suggested that a populist can "turn against the public demands" (though likely you and I have slightly different definitions of "turn against" and "public demands"), or that a populist is necessarily unconcerned with majorities. As I've said, polling should be used as a tool of a populist, but if he isn't concerned with following majorities at all, then I'm not sure what use a poll would be to him.
Okay, yes, populism/elitism are more attitudes in government than definite ideologies (again, neither populism nor elitism will give you any answers, like conservatism or socialism might, it's all very fact-dependent). But that still doesn't mean that a populist might not say "oh, the people want to protect industry, raise tariffs!" and an elitist might not say "oh, all of my steel company donors want to protect the steel industry, raise tariffs!" and they somehow won't arrive at the same point. It all just matters who their "master" is at the end of the day, and what their primary basis of power is, popularity vs. lobbying.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The instability of China during the warlord period was definitely part of Japan's calculus in intervening in what they (not without justification) considered to be "their" sphere of influence. They had fought and won three wars against China, Russia, and the Central Powers to secure that status in East Asia. Nevertheless, considering that the Boxer Rebellion was a popular movement, I'm sure any major unilateral move would have been perceived domestically in a similar light of "conquest". Perhaps a mulilateral intervention would too, but all that matters is how the Qing government saw it, since ultimately the Boxer Rebellion was more of a "we're helping you do your own job" than it was a "defeat the rebels" operation. If a single country had intervened, the Qing government may not have been so conciliatory, especially if it was a neighbor like Russia or Japan.
These laws all seem to discriminate on the basis of national origin, rather than race, no? Certainly there are many countries throughout the world that limit the ability of foreigners to, for example, own property. New Zealand, for example. But I don't hear anyone arguing that New Zealand is an apartheid state. And given the tension between Israelis and Palestinians, I can't say it's surprising.
I was speaking more of the current, present-day situation than the turmoil of the late '40s. But although all that is very regrettable, it's not like Israel (or the Zionist militias before it) was alone in such tactics. It could be argued that the repatriation of ethnic Germans throughout Europe by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union was also ethnic cleansing. Germans were viewed as undesirable, and they were expelled in countries throughout Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. But even in the Saarland, the French military forced Germans from their homes at gun point too. As for any massacres, Deir Yassin in particular, those that preceded Israel's creation cannot be placed at its feet, especially since the Irgun was a very volatile pre-independence group and viewed with suspicion not only by the British, but even by Ben-Gurion; among the Zionists, the massacre was condemned, including by the Haganah.
I don't see why the Israelis, having already accepted the UN plan, should then turn around and accept a different plan proposed solely by the United States, after the Israeli positions had already come under attack. Faced with overwhelming opposition to any compromise by the Arab world, particularly Jordan and Egypt, I think it's completely understandable that their attitudes became entrenched.
Number 8 for me.
I believe that in certain circumstances self defense is necessary, I believe that Capital Punishment should be a rare thing due to other factors of society today but I think it can be moral, and I do believe that war is a neccessary tragedy, but only just wars as outlined by the Catholic Church.
One thing to keep in mind though is that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was a victim to state sponsored torture and death by the most feared means back then. Also if St. Paul was executed for his persecuting and killing Christians he would never have the chance to do all the good he did for us. This is why I'm not for violence unless it absolutely is necessary. Essentially it's more like extended pacifism and less like actually supporting violence. I don't support violence. I say it may be possible at certain times when it is necessary. If the intention is done with malice even a self defense case can be an evil act.
This is why, and I know I'm stepping on a land mine my American friends will hate me for, but I can see a war on the genocidal countries of Hitler's Germany (11 million dead through what were essentially death factories) and WW2 Imperial Japan (they killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians in a single city never mind the rest of China) as possibly being considered a potential candidate for a just war, however certain actions like the Dresden bombing, fire bombing cities, and nuking Japanese cities
My first and historical argument to that: The Japanese were actually already considering surrender before you nuked them. I learned this in history class. As for the soviets I fall onto argument 2 because I don't think that logic is good in the first place.
My second and more philosophical argument: does one side taking thousands of civilian lives allow the other to do the same. What makes America better than the Japanese it that moment if they stoop down to their level. I love America and the wonderful things it's brought to the world but I will not support the immoralities that have come with it. You say you wanted to scare off the Soviets and make Japan surrender. I say don't become the monster you fight.
Also by my logic if a country can defend it's borders then people can defend their property. That being said a life is more valuable than jewelry or money but if, God forbid, someone tried to destroy huge amounts of property (buildings), that's probably fair play. It could harm people and it's ruining lives or even killing people. Killing the terrorists who did 911 is probably a massive example of where I would say if somebody could've it's a candidate for not being immoral to kill the attackers.
Feudalism was a hierarchical social and economic system based on fiefs and fealty.
https://www.ancient.eu/Feudalism/
Anarcho-monarchism is a hypothetical system of government where a monarch would preside over a night-watchman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskammergericht
Imperial citizens (forum members) would be free to organize themselves into Imperial Circles (forum groups), to which the Emperor could grant charters. Through its charter, each Imperial Circle would determine its own organization and mode of government. The charters would be binding agreements between Imperial Circles and their members, enforceable in the Imperial Chamber Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Circle
A limited list of matters of regionwide concern, such as recruitment, forum organization, and the regional flag, would be decided by imperial decree. In issuing decrees, the Emperor would consult with the Aulic Council, composed of one representative from each Imperial Circle (chosen according to the terms of its own charter).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulic_Council
The region's WA delegacy would have been a free-for-all, contested by alliances of Imperial Circles.
I thought my idea was a good one, but Mike ultimately decided to go with run-of-the-mill constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy -- a system that's widely used throughout NationStates.
Lagrodia and Under ledzia
Our polls prove to us how boring this region really is... Let's do the other proposed poll before we continue the religious ones.
Happy Canada Day!
I wouldn't identify myself with that term, but it is certainly true that democracy as we think of it was largely born in the Middle Ages and, indeed, lasted until the Revolutions slowly or quickly destroyed the ancient liberties. Tocqueville was shocked by this when he learned that the little French towns had been as ftree or freer under the Ancien Regime as they were in America. Erasmus famously observed when he visited Strasbourg that it's freedom and beautiful harmony of government was the ultimate fulfillment of Plato''s ideals. These are just anecdotes. It is also worth noting that it is not monarchy that achieved this, but the Church and Christ and Christian culture.
First of all, the Magnus I'm referring to was King of Norway in the 13th century. At any rate I take your point but I'm not so sure they need be so sharply divided. I won't go through all the details but suffice to say Magnus faced many circumstances related to those Napoleon III faced. The basic problems of governance are rooted in human nature and that doesn't much change even if material circumstances do. One example: Magnus kept the factions in his kingdom from tearing it apart due to greed and desire for power, mostly by shear weight of his office and his personality. I don't see why a ruler cannot be a good leader who, yes, obviously has to make pragmatic decisions, but also a good person.
Again compare he with her actual peers: the equally half-smiling and hand shaking Presidents in countries like say, India or Italy. Alternatively you have countries where there is no distinction between head of government and state, most of which are effective dictatorships or at least woefully corrupt. But sure I'd love to see her given more de facto power.
Feudalism never existed, academics never use the word any more as it is seen as a false concept.
I feel like one cannot really answer the poll if every category is 'only in X' and the categories are vague and/or do not overlap. If someone thought killing was valid, say, in defense of another life, in religious law, and in cases of suffering, they would have to select three different answers, which they cannot, and the question of war seems to be left off entirely.
It definitely is controversial, but I would agree with you on the bombings, both nuclear and otherwise. I do not think the argument that Japan was about to surrender is a solid one, I think that is optimistic at best and they likely would have fought on, but the attacks are usually defended by an argument of necessity that is questionable at best. There is a line of argument often used that if the U.S. did not use the bombs that more would have died in a land invasion or in Operation Starvation, but these presuppose that those things had to happen, when they never did. Japan had been effectively neutered, and the United States had complete control of the seas. The destruction of the nation was never a necessity. One cannot defend over one hundred thousand civilians killed by saying more would have died when the number of future deaths was under the control of the U.S.
Mass bombing of civilian cities, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Dresden, the firebombings, and others are messy attacks on noncombatants that are either undeniable innocents (thousands of children), or, broadly speaking, can be criticized for being detached accomplices to evil things being done far from them (which is pretty darn shaky ground to go on in a nation that has killed tens of millions of infants but would probably be upset if someone bombed Dallas.) The justification of them requires an amount of either 'ends justify the means' or 'guilt by association' that would seem monstrous in pretty much any other context, and I do not think they can be justified.
But here is where I can get very controversial-I do not believe that those bombings represent 'just war' because I do not think that there is such a thing as a just war in the modern world. The thought process behind it is not really complicated-a declaration of war is not sufficient to suddenly make acceptable killings that would otherwise be unlawful.
A sniper overseas can take up a position undetected half a mile out from an enemy compound and shoot a soldier or commander of the other side without the victim even knowing he was there. That would be a killing that was done in cold blood, premeditated, and in a situation where the shooter had no fear whatsoever for life or limb-they person they are shooting is not even aware of them. In any other context, that is an assassination and a murder. The circumstances around it have not changed sufficiently to change that judgement.
Self-defense cannot be justified in a nebulous preemptive way. A justified killing is limited to an instance where there is active and immediate fear of the loss of life from potentially lethal force, which is responded to not by attempting to deliberately kill the other person, but attempting to end the threat-a killing may well result, and likely will, but the justification comes from the action being a direct attempt to prevent potentially lethal force from being done. Military action fails both of these tests. Its killings are deliberate ones, a self-defense situation that ends nonlethally is a success, an attack that ends without killing any other soldiers is considered a failure, and immediacy is not the standard used. At best, the standard is "these brigades marched into our country and we think that they will probably kill people in the future", and at worst it is "we have occupied the homeland of these people and the ones in that camp might attempt to fight back." In the civilian world, even if someone actively sends you a death threat, it is illegal to go to their house and kill them, but the presence of people wearing an incorrectly colored uniform is sufficient to justify attacking their encampment and killing everyone there.
That is not to say that all killing within a war cannot be justified. It can be, if it meets the same standards as any other justified killing-if you are under attack and under fear for your life, that is a justified instance of self-defense on the individual level. War, on the broader level, however, is not that. It is, in essence, a declaration announcing the intent to kill outside of self-defense, killings that would be considered murder in any other context and should not be washed clean in this one-any such proclamation of the intent to so kill cannot be just.
Too bad you think gambling is immoral xD.
I can see arguments for 3, 4, 5, and 6. 6 isn’t really justified but it’s somewhat complex. When an armed robber comes, you’re not really sure whether you’re defending yourself or property.
╭━━━━╮ This is meme dog. Help
╰┃ ┣▇━▇ meme dog take over nation-states
┃ ┃ ╰━▅╮ by pasting
╰┳╯ ╰━━┳╯ him in 10 other
╰╮ ┳━━╯ regions or he
▕▔▋ ╰╮╭━╮ will never be a meme
╱▔╲▋╰━┻┻╮╲╱▔▔▔╲
▏ ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ O O┃
╲╱▔╲▂▂▂▂╱▔╲▂▂▂╱
▏╳▕▇▇▕ ▏╳▕▇▇▕
╲▂╱╲▂╱ ╲▂╱╲▂╱
What the hell did I just read...
I have never met any historian in the world that did say feudalism never existed and in contrary I know personally historians who focus greatly on medieval ages and thus talk a lot about feudalism...
Don't do that... Please someone suppress this...
So it's like feudalism but without intermediate nobility. The night-watchman thing sounds like how towns were organized in the Middle Ages.
I know for a fact I can go to the nearest bookstore and probably find the word feudalism in every book on the Middle Ages. Now, there may be some revisionist debate that "feudalism" has been given more emphasis than it deserves, as historians always love to reinvent the wheel these days, but I would need to see a source that proves there's any kind of consensus on that fact.
I already did put a poll up and I tried making answers less specyfic so we won't need a huge RMB flood with explanations...
[Edit: 1-in-10] babies aborted in Ireland in first year after repeal of the Eighth Amendment. 6,666 in total, per data from the Department of Health.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/6666-abortions-performed-in-ireland-last-year-after-repeal-of-pro-life-law-17489
This on the heels of the Irish government setting up anti-protest "exclusion zones" around hospitals after the Minister of Health referred to pro-life protests as "sickening" and "anti-democratic".
https://www.irishcatholic.com/govt-push-for-exclusion-zones-dubbed-vindictive/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/abortion-minister-warns-of-exclusion-zones-after-hospital-protests-1.4129036
Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Catholic State of Eire, and 2 othersLagrodia, and Under ledzia
What do you mean "exclusion zones"? Isn't that even more anti-democratic?
«12. . .2,1682,1692,1702,1712,1722,1732,174. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
