5394
Post by: reds8n
*golf clap*
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
original article
So.... it's now pretty much impossible for the Un to say ..anything abour what happens in Muslim countries then ?
And this is progress ?
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
A sad, sad day. It is essential for the sake of freedom, that nothing (and yes I do mean nothing) is above legitimate criticism Please note there is a vast difference between criticism and offence, many radicals however cannot tell the difference.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
A good friend of mine keeps saying that he's going to go to a goat farmer in lapland because society is crumbling.
I'm starting to think he's got a point. 
5394
Post by: reds8n
Indeed, frankly I'm astonished that enough other countries went for it in the first place. I wouldn't have thought that Russia, China, similar would have been too bothered. Wonder what they got out of it then. 
1423
Post by: dienekes96
UN folds.
I fixed the subject line for you, red 
5394
Post by: reds8n
dienekes96 wrote:UN folds.
I fixed the subject line for you, red
But....
...I
....you see...
...bugger.
It's alright, I'll give it a few minutes and someone'll "helpfully" blame it on Bolton and we can slag Bush/EVIL America off again and normal service will be resumed.
( NOT a request ! Thanks anyway!)
5030
Post by: Grignard
I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem is to expect to have one's beliefs respected publicly, regardless of how you may feel about them. Do I believe the way, I don't know, Hindus do? No, i do not. Would I denigrate their religion. No.
5394
Post by: reds8n
But there's a difference between denigration and discussion no ?
5470
Post by: sebster
reds8n wrote:Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
The article is built around the above. Everything else is a generic atheists get it tough rant. If the above is true, it's serious business. If it isn't true the whole thing is just so much more internet noise. It's a shame no reference was given in the article to what exact change he's so worried about, because having a look around I can't find anything to substantiate the above.
I can't even figure out what might have changed. The Rapporeurs for Human Rights is a different post to the Rapporteur for Religious Freedom, both have been around a long time and I can't find anything changing the nature of either role.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I think the point is that the Pakistani delegate called for the change because he believes that there is such a thing as 'abuse of free speech' - specifically in this case that no-one has the right to criticise Islam.
Either we have free speech or not - it doesn't have limits or it isn't free.
5030
Post by: Grignard
reds8n wrote: But there's a difference between denigration and discussion no ?
Its fine if you don't believe in God, i don't particularly. But the discussion this person is speaking of, as evidenced by the tone of his arguments, is public humiliation and ridicule. I don't understand why people need to go about criticizing people's faith and equating faith with evidence based knowledge. What harm in believing in something that makes people feel better. Fine, you're an athiest, what gives you the right to drag people into "reality" as you see it??
5394
Post by: reds8n
link
fox article prior to vote
link
I'm not going to claim that original article or these are 100% guaranteed accurate, but they're all pushing in the same direction.
That said Hari ( article author) does indeed have a bit of a bugbear about "atheists getting it tough."
5030
Post by: Grignard
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I think the point is that the Pakistani delegate called for the change because he believes that there is such a thing as 'abuse of free speech' - specifically in this case that no-one has the right to criticise Islam.
Either we have free speech or not - it doesn't have limits or it isn't free.
That is a 1 or 10 argument, that does not have to be the case at all.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. I don't give a fig for the UN. I do care greatly about freedom of speech, even in this regard.
2. I have heard this before. Its being used as a method to stifle a whole slurry of human rights items in Middle Eastern countries, and impose their standards on the rest of the world.
I'd better stop at this point, else I may have to report myself as violating Dakka rules, and frankly I've had to give myself a good talking to one too many times this year already 
5470
Post by: sebster
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I think the point is that the Pakistani delegate called for the change because he believes that there is such a thing as 'abuse of free speech' - specifically in this case that no-one has the right to criticise Islam.
Yeah, but the link below is the lady in question. She's the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, her task has been protection of freedom of religion. Protection of freedom of speach is tasked to other Rapporteurs.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/
Either we have free speech or not - it doesn't have limits or it isn't free.
Fine. But when someone uses their free speech, its up to other's to look at what's been said and ask 'is that true?'.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Grignard wrote:
Its fine if you don't believe in God, i don't particularly. But the discussion this person is speaking of, as evidenced by the tone of his arguments, is public humiliation and ridicule. I don't understand why people need to go about criticizing people's faith and equating faith with evidence based knowledge. What harm in believing in something that makes people feel better. Fine, you're an athiest, what gives you the right to drag people into "reality" as you see it??
I'm an atheist through and through-- might go for the deathbed conversion just in case but that's anotehr thread...-- I still don't see how discussion in the UN over issues such as child abuse or the stoning to death of women is equivalent to "public humiliation and ridicule".
In fact it is/was ( depending upon "denomination") a central tenet of Islam that rational thought and discussion is a key facet of human existence and should be encouraged.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The dictator will use any means to maintain power. Religion has a history of being used in that context.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
reds8n wrote: But there's a difference between denigration and discussion no ?
Of course there is... until it's YOUR religion that's being discussed. Then it becomes denigration. 
You've hit the nail right on the head, of course. No one wants their particular brand of religion talked about in a negative manner. If it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then how could you even find fault?!? That's blasphemy! Islam in general does not tolerate questioning of Islam. If you speak against the prophet then you must die. That's what's being taught. How do I know? Because I see Islamic yoofs taking to the streets with signs chanting "Death to America" and heard them calling for Rushdie's head and my President's head for years.
Grignard wrote:I don't understand why people need to go about criticizing people's faith and equating faith with evidence based knowledge. What harm in believing in something that makes people feel better. Fine, you're an athiest, what gives you the right to drag people into "reality" as you see it??
Well, when your belief system includes killing your wife or children if they bring Islam shame or sawing the heads off those you see as opposing "The Truth" then I'd say that constitutes harm.
5470
Post by: sebster
reds8n wrote:link
fox article prior to vote
link
I'm not going to claim that original article or these are 100% guaranteed accurate, but they're all pushing in the same direction.
That said Hari ( article author) does indeed have a bit of a bugbear about "atheists getting it tough."
Yeah, but they're all from reactionary sites. I gave the original story a little more leeway because I think the author is reasonably well regarded (I don't read him, just going off of memory). The other sites don't substantiate anything really, there's a reference to a bill banning the defamation of religion (not the same thing as banning criticism of religious practice) and then long rants about stuff that isn't at all related.
I'm not saying there isn't a story here, but I'm still waiting to see it, if you know what I mean.
5394
Post by: reds8n
To clarify Mr. Green Git : it's not taught like that everywhere, it's more the rise of a/some very strict and hard line sects/denominations. sadly the more militant ones-- the ones who chase women/girls back into burning buildings as they're dressed improperly-- are backed by many of the existing very rich regimes who do very well out of maintaining the status quo.
9505
Post by: CaptainRavenclaw
Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?
Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.
I get confused about this issue.
5470
Post by: sebster
The Green Git wrote:Of course there is... until it's YOUR religion that's being discussed. Then it becomes denigration.
You've hit the nail right on the head, of course. No one wants their particular brand of religion talked about in a negative manner. If it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then how could you even find fault?!? That's blasphemy! Islam in general does not tolerate questioning of Islam. If you speak against the prophet then you must die. That's what's being taught. How do I know? Because I see Islamic yoofs taking to the streets with signs chanting "Death to America" and heard them calling for Rushdie's head and my President's head for years.
Your understanding of Islam as the religion of a billion people is pathetically limited.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem is to expect to have one's beliefs respected publicly, regardless of how you may feel about them. Do I believe the way, I don't know, Hindus do? No, i do not. Would I denigrate their religion. No.
I have no issue with the private lives and beliefs of individuals providing they do not affect me or adversely affect others. However as soon as they start to impose themselves upon myself or other people then damn right I intend to kick up a fuss, loudly and publically. Bishops in the house of lords, the introduction of shariah law, religious indoctrination in state schools, the hijab, calls for homosexuals to be treated as second class citizens, the Danish cartoon debacle are just a few examples I can think of where is right and proper to criticise religion. That some would seek to take away my freedom of speech with regards to these matters, under the smokescreen of showing respect, is nothing short of disgusting. Its nothing to do with poking fun or insulting people private beliefs.
5470
Post by: sebster
reds8n wrote: To clarify Mr. Green Git : it's not taught like that everywhere, it's more the rise of a/some very strict and hard line sects/denominations. sadly the more militant ones-- the ones who chase women/girls back into burning buildings as they're dressed improperly-- are backed by many of the existing very rich regimes who do very well out of maintaining the status quo.
Absolutely. There are dangerous reactionary groups, but to claim the majority of muslims are like that is simply wrong.
5394
Post by: reds8n
sebster wrote:
Yeah, but they're all from reactionary sites. I gave the original story a little more leeway because I think the author is reasonably well regarded (I don't read him, just going off of memory). The other sites don't substantiate anything really, there's a reference to a bill banning the defamation of religion (not the same thing as banning criticism of religious practice) and then long rants about stuff that isn't at all related.
I'm not saying there isn't a story here, but I'm still waiting to see it, if you know what I mean.
Oh totally, but those were merely the first 3 that turned up in the google search, and I haven't been able to find any actual counters to this.
And......it's not often that Hari agrees with Fox if you follow me.
to claim the majority of muslims are like that is simply wrong.
QFT.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This reminds me of when the Soviet Union and other communist bloc countries were big on the idea of peoples' rights -- as opposed to human rights -- which meant in effect the right of governments to be protected from stuff.
This religious speech rights is the same thing only ostensibly for religion but actually it will be used to prevent dissent and criticism of undemocratic governments many of which happen by luck to be in Islamic countries.
If religion is to be protected from criticism, why not belief sytems such as politics, climate change denial, paedophilia, accountancy standards and other such conceptual frameworks.
5470
Post by: sebster
reds8n wrote: And......it's not often that Hari agrees with Fox if you follow me.
True dat. I'm off to bed now but I'll check into this some more at lunch tomorrow.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Also an indefensible position often becomes defensible when shrouded in anything people are unable to criticize. Not because the argument becomes any stronger but because people become afraid to attack.
Lets take an example, a man at a dinner party declares he detests homosexuals. When quizzed as to why the he gives one of the following 2 answers.
A) Well I don’t like the way they mince along, their camp voices annoy me and I hate Celine Dion. They don't even play Rugby, bloody poofs.
or
B) It's an abomination to the lord Jesus/Allah/Thor/The Party.
Now im willing to be answer A would be greeted with cries of bigotry, and rightly so. Answer B on the other hand with nothing more than a few awkward mumblings before the conversation is moved swiftly along.
Now I'm not saying all religious people think like this, far from it so please don’t assume I am. I'm just using this as an example of how granting carte blanche 'respect' to any ideology (religious or political) can potentially be very dangerous. We cannot become tolerant of intolerance.
221
Post by: Frazzled
s.j.mccartney wrote:Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?
Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.
I get confused about this issue.
I don't want the UN or Saudi Arabia telling me what my free speech rights are. I have an absolute right to free speech under the US Constitution guaranteed by the full faith and credit of thousands of MRV'd missiles. The UN can biteth me.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
The Green Git wrote:You've hit the nail right on the head, of course. No one wants their particular brand of religion talked about in a negative manner. If it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then how could you even find fault?!? That's blasphemy! Islam in general does not tolerate questioning of Islam. If you speak against the prophet then you must die. That's what's being taught. How do I know? Because I see Islamic yoofs taking to the streets with signs chanting "Death to America" and heard them calling for Rushdie's head and my President's head for years.
Grignard wrote:I don't understand why people need to go about criticizing people's faith and equating faith with evidence based knowledge. What harm in believing in something that makes people feel better. Fine, you're an athiest, what gives you the right to drag people into "reality" as you see it??
Well, when your belief system includes killing your wife or children if they bring Islam shame or sawing the heads off those you see as opposing "The Truth" then I'd say that constitutes harm.
This is what's wrong with this situation is that the media makes people believe this is true. There is no tenet of faith in Islam that allows you to do these things and in fact the Quran actually teaches differently. Things the extremists do in the name of Islam is generally strictly forbidden in the Quran(there's a reason Osama Bin Laden has been exiled and baned from at least 2 Middle Eastern countries), which actually teaches tolerance of other religions. Next time you want to post about a religion, why don't you actually LEARN something about it before you start spouting the ignorant propaganda you learn from CNN and Fox News every night.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Frazzled wrote:s.j.mccartney wrote:Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?
Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.
I get confused about this issue.
I don't want the UN or Saudi Arabia telling me what my free speech rights are. I have an absolute right to free speech under the US Constitution guaranteed by the full faith and credit of thousands of MRV'd missiles. The UN can biteth me.
Then, how about we just leave them alone. I can't understand how peole who are against the war in Iraq can say in the same breath how we shouldn't tolerate honor killings, treating women like second class citizens, etc.
Here is a novel idea, why don't we leave these people alone to puruse their own culture. We might percieve what they do as violating "human rights", whatever that means, but who gives us authority to say our moral system is better than theirs. Is it God? Well, isn't that what these people are arguing against?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I don't have a problem with that in an official capacity. Unofficially, (non-government) I still have the right to shine a spotlight on abusive practices, or merely to see Religion X is full of poppy (or inversely atheists are full of people depending on what I've eaten that day).
Your right to free speech, or limiting of that right, ends at my nose.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Don't worry Lads.
The notion of God is gradually dying out as we explore Science further and become less and less dependant on deities which may or may not exist to enforce our attitudes and preferences on others.
The Great WAr pretty much stomped on Religion in Britain, and the 2nd World War helped speed a general malaise along.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Not dying out. Merging. Historical notions of religion will merely be updated. Religion has been the respite from the big questions, the questions that science cannnot answer, and it will continue to be.
Religion is simply evolving.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Don't worry Lads.
The notion of God is gradually dying out as we explore Science further and become less and less dependant on deities which may or may not exist to enforce our attitudes and preferences on others.
The Great WAr pretty much stomped on Religion in Britain, and the 2nd World War helped speed a general malaise along.
Really Mad Doc? I've studied science for many years now, and I didn't get what I expected out of it. I don't see how it is any more meaningful than some guy having a vision and claiming he spoke to God. All I do is observe something many times, then compare it to other people's work to see if they agree with me. In other words, it isn't any more than the democritization of reality. What is it going to do for me? How am I going to get anything out of that.
All and all a waste of 7 years of higher education if you asked me. I wish I had never started frankly.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance. It doesn't claim to have answers, but hopes to one day.
Religion IMHO claims to have the answers, without any evidence.
I know which I put my faith in.
Edited to make statements more about my opinion than ones of fact. Apologies.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Ironic choice of words. The whole point of religion *is* faith. Science does not rely upon faith.
If you need evidence, religion requires you look inward. Science requires outward observation.
If you need outward evidence, religion isn't going to help you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
s.j.mccartney wrote:Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?
Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.
I get confused about this issue.
German law prohibits the display of Nazi regalia so the Nazis could not hold a rally in Nuremberg today.
Free speech would allow the Nazis to hold rallies in the USA. It would equally allow anti-Nazis to hold rallies. Then the public could hear both sides of the argument and make their own minds up.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance. It doesn't claim to have answers, but hopes to one day.
Religion IMHO claims to have the answers, without any evidence.
I know which I put my faith in.
Edited to make statements more about my opinion than ones of fact. Apologies.
Then you should go for it, and hope you don't get dissapointed.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Frazzled wrote:yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...
Never said it was.
But it has tangible results. It is generally happiest when proving itself *Wrong*.
And I'm not aware of opposing opinions about Science ever having caused or encouraged genocide.
5394
Post by: reds8n
dienekes96 wrote:
Religion is simply evolving.
I think this is an interesting idea that ties in with the state of Islam in the modern world. When you look at all the "great" religions of the world they, akin to any social construct or organisation, go through periodic upheavals and changes-- the reformation, the formation of the COE etc etc-- all of which cause no end of strife and unrest. I think Islam is at the stage where it's going through something similar, with some people wanting it to evolve and adapt and move forwards, others steadfastedly refusing and insisting in a virtual retreat into fundamentalist or "old school" belief and the majority of people caught in the middle just wishing people would make their bloody minds up and get it over with.
I've read a few article that put forth quite strong arguments that the-- and I mean no offence here honest-- somewhat peculiarly firebrand nature of American Christian fundamentalism-- really grew out of the backlash against such strict adherence after the Scope trial in '25. This isolationist approach was then fueled by the desperation of the great depression and then further fueled by events both social and technological in the next few decades.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Frazzled wrote:yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...
Never said it was.
But it has tangible results. It is generally happiest when proving itself *Wrong*.
And I'm not aware of opposing opinions about Science ever having caused or encouraged genocide.
That is an ideal, but I can assure you that research scientists can get an illogical attachment to what they believe is right, particularly if they've invested a career in it.
And really WWII was about ideological differences between nations that had "scientific" planned states.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Eugenics is a science. Look up its history in the 1920s.
Plenty of science has been used to justify all sorts of malarkey.
Anyway, that is beside the point which is that ideas should be allowed to be discussed and criticised, whether they are religious, political, scientific or whatever.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
I think this is getting off topic. Lets not turn this into a science vs religion debate. This is about the right to criticise an opposing viewpoint.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Too Late!
Post 2 in an OT thread is where the thread usualy goes off topic anyway
5030
Post by: Grignard
Kilkrazy wrote:Eugenics is a science. Look up its history in the 1920s.
Plenty of science has been used to justify all sorts of malarkey.
Anyway, that is beside the point which is that ideas should be allowed to be discussed and criticised, whether they are religious, political, scientific or whatever.
I think Eugenics isn't entirely malarkey either.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance.
Socrates acknowledged that long before science was invented, as well as one or two others.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Kilkrazy wrote:My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.
And the discovery of Nuclear Fission was used to kill thousands in a single bomb and ushered in a period of paranoia. Yet used wisely, it is a source of energy which improves the lives of millions, with relatively minimal damage to the world at large (well, as long as the waste is properly disposed of. Otherwise it tends to knack things somewhat)
Eugenics in itself is not an evil idea. Quite an interesting article in the Fortean Times this month about it. Theoretically, Eugenics is a form of guided evolution. But as the article says, it brings up the question of who gets to judge which qualities are worth breeding and which are marked for extinction, and at that point things get muddy to say the least.
It is Science that enables us to have this conversation. It is Science that has saved my life on numerous occasions. It is Science that enables us to feed our growing population. To me, all Religion has done is to stunt mankinds growth. It's an artificial moral system which sadly, like certain Scientific endeavours, has been applied to all manner of heinous behaviour and acts.
And this is the truly interesting thing to me. Which came first? The Ten Commandments, or the general idea that being a bastard to people isn't the best way to get ahead in life? Now, this is a difficult thing to discuss as we have all been brought up in a world which, regardless of which denomination or faith you follow, they tend to agree that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide line on how not to be a knob to your neighbour. As such, I find it very hard to think that the things ruled in the Ten Commandments were ever all that socially acceptable. I mean, before they were written, I think I'd still have been pissed off with you if you knobbed my Missus behind my back, and probably feel quite bad about hacking you into tiny bits.
As such, my belief is that a persons faith is a very good, very natural and very healthy thing. It's just when you get some guy declare himself Gods Representative on Earth, because his mates are all really close to God and they agree with him (yes, I mean the Catholic Faith) that things get dangerous. Surely, if things are to be believed at face value, God gave Mankind the Bible as his way, and not to some bloke to decide which bits to enforce at any given point in time. The same goes for all religious texts. Even if they ever were the word of a Deity, that was thousands of years ago and since they were handed down, us idiot Apes have been telling others. And nobody ever, ever tells the whole truth. Ergo, the Bible as we know it, to my mind at least is categorically not the Word of God. And if I am wrong, I will answer to the big man himself when I pop my clogs, and not to some Priest appointed by other human beings to be my moral guardian for the reason he agreed with them.
Sorry. Diverged a bit there somewhat!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
When the weak are elected to protect the frightened freedom dies at the hands of those who will cut a deal. When you allow torture, when you allow jailing of the press, when you allow protests to be stamped out this is what you get. You reap what you sow. The UN is a paper tiger with no morals. It's led by countries with hideous human rights records and is little more than a gathering of bitchy diplomats. It needs a teardown and total restructuring.
It's an artificial moral system which sadly, like certain Scientific endeavours, has been applied to all manner of heinous behaviour and acts.
All moral systems are artificial constructs. One based on religious belief holds the same weight as one governed by scientific study.
My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.
Yes, and it could also be used to sterilize those with mental illness that can be transmitted genetically. Fire has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions if not billions in human history. It's hot. It hurts. That doesn't make it evil. Eugenics isn't the study of happy singalong everyone is happy-land. Its the study of improving the human race, and it runs counter to the ideas of universal equality, but much like the idea of meritocracy and capitalism its not evil for doing so. It's an idea, however outdated and increasingly irrelevant.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
How terrible! 
Oh, wait.
The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.
Nevermind...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I dunno. It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to see Eugenics being implemented as the human race grows in numbers (this isn't something I'm particularly in favour of BTW!)
You see, we have pretty much removed the process of natural selection (you could look at us and say we have achieved the pinnacle of evolution in doing so) which means there is nothing sorting the genetic wheat from the genetic chaff (see my earlier post about who decides which is which being the biggest problem about eugenics and why it's not a terribly great idea after all).
After all, the way things are going we could well end up like the Eloi and the Morlocks from HG Wells the Time Machine socially. I don't mind admitting I get pissed off with Dole Scum sitting around doing sod all all day because their hand outs make them a decent enough living via my taxes (mmm! Surprisingly right wing at times for a lefty me!).
Same with Meritocracy. In theory, it's a fine way to run things. But to quote Jarvis Cockers 'running the world'...
'Well did you hear?
Theres a natural order.
Those most deserving
Will end up with the most.
The cream cannot help
But always rise up to the top.
Well I say, gak floats.'
Look at Capitalism. The free market has sadly only allowed a few companies to really thrive, and not only that, but thrive to the point where the smaller ones cannot compete (Walmart is a good example. Tesco's would be a British example).
Any idea has it's pitfalls, it's just some are deeper, spikier and shittier than others.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
JohnHwangDD wrote:How terrible!
Oh, wait.
The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.
Nevermind...
Actually it does a lot. It just doesn't get the big things done with any sort of expediency. Its a major forum for small problems but a totally ineffective one for dealing with the major issues that plague mankind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Besides give a lot of money to line dictators' and their friends' pockets, what does the UN do again?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Organises PEace Keeping Forces, providing a (supposedly and generally) neutral force to protect civilians.
Arranges Aid Packages to disaster zones.
Lots of humanitarian stuff really.
221
Post by: Frazzled
And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.
-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't
Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I am quite certain than people will use genetic engineering to improve their children -- look at the lack of girls in India and China, resulting from in utero ultrasound screening.
Some bad mistakes will be made, no doubt, but it will definitely happen.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@MDG: I wasn't aware that the UN was the IRC. Because IIRC, the Red Cross is actually useful.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Back to my comment on religion evolving.
Think back to the history of religion in recorded human history.
Initially religion was used to explain natural phenomena (such as the weather or seasons or emotions). It was a marker for science. This is the basis of the polytheistic belief systems.
Later it was used to govern. Religion was used as a method for developing and inplementing social constructs. This is the Old Testament.
Now it's purpose is far more in line with philosophy. With man's purpose and life's meaning. This is more New Testament.
Science and religion are as opposed as science and philosophy.
Which is to say they are not. There are some religious fundamentalists who pursue that false interpretation, and plenty of fundamentalistic atheists (and there are such a thing) love that diametric opposition. But it's false. Science is searching for fact. Religion is searching for truth. Like philosophy, modern religion exists to support understanding ourselves. Not to act as an alternative to science.
And those lines are blurred. It did not smoothly transition from one use to another.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.
-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't
Only because you refuse to define UN members as part of the UN. That's like saying nothing comes from the Federal Government because it really only comes from the people, or that nothing really comes from the people because it really only comes from the planet. Reductionism gets us nowhere.
Frazzled wrote:
Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.
So, wait, NGOs are fine, but the UN is not? The UN is the largest NGO on the planet, with the possible exception of the Red Cross/Crescent. You're imposing a ridiculous double standard.
Frazzled wrote:
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.
Meh. We spend a lot of money on our headquarters too. The White House isn't cheap. Actually, I'd wager that its far more expensive than the UN complex in New York.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.
-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't
Only because you refuse to define UN members as part of the UN. That's like saying nothing comes from the Federal Government because it really only comes from the people, or that nothing really comes from the people because it really only comes from the planet. Reductionism gets us nowhere.
Respectfully you are are correct. I don't identify the UN members as the UN.
1. The members are sovereign nations that do their own thing.
2. The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm. By its very essence it is incapcable of spending money as efficiently as an NGO or donor nation-they have to pay all that rent, salaries, and bribes after all.
Frazzled wrote:
Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.
So, wait, NGOs are fine, but the UN is not? The UN is the largest NGO on the planet, with the possible exception of the Red Cross/Crescent. You're imposing a ridiculous double standard.
By its nature the UN is not an NGO. The UN is a supranational governmental entity with no authority but a nice budget.
Remember, if you want to do something efficiently, you don't meet at a boondoggle in Switzerland. Lets get real.
Frazzled wrote:
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.
Meh. We spend a lot of money on our headquarters too. The White House isn't cheap. Actually, I'd wager that its far more expensive than the UN complex in New York.
Again, the White House is the executive of a sovereign nation that actually does things. But I agree - it - like the Fed and at least my state, are hyper bloated and could do with a 50% reduction in personnel and divisions.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully you are are correct. I don't identify the UN members as the UN.
1. The members are sovereign nations that do their own thing.
2. The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm. By its very essence it is incapcable of spending money as efficiently as an NGO or donor nation-they have to pay all that rent, salaries, and bribes after all.
You've clearly not spent much time examining the operations of your average NGO. Most of these groups, in particular the humanitarian ones, are as beholden to corruption and mis-tasking as the UN is. They have their own specific political agendas that relate to publicity, and the acquisition of funding. It isn't like they earn their money through commercial activity.
Frazzled wrote:
By its nature the UN is not an NGO. The UN is a supranational governmental entity with no authority but a nice budget.
That's about what an NGO is. Yes, the term denotes Non-Governmental Organization, but that really only applies in the context of the conventional understanding the nationalist system. In a very real way NGOs have a discernible affect on the political reality of the territories in which they work, and many of them use that affect in the pursuit of an agenda. That makes them as a clear a governing force as anything I know of.
Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you want to do something efficiently, you don't meet at a boondoggle in Switzerland. Lets get real.
Unless what you want to do is develop international dialogue, which is the real purpose of the UN. The resolution of specific issues is secondary.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, the White House is the executive of a sovereign nation that actually does things. But I agree - it - like the Fed and at least my state, are hyper bloated and could do with a 50% reduction in personnel and divisions.
The UN does things though, a lot of them. You just aren't giving it credit for anything because you want to see it as fully ineffective. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Unless what you want to do is develop international dialogue, which is the real purpose of the UN. The resolution of specific issues is secondary.
So they have to go to place with nice skiing. I see, its all about dialog. Good thing my tax dollars are going to that instead of directly to a charity that is actually using those dollars.
Oh well, the efficacy of the UN is best served in a different topic.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm.
yet ! The day's a comin' !
Is the UN flawed ? Of course, but it does help with a lot of humanitarian issues, as well as other issues such as international drug control, relief effort etc etc.
They should still pay their damn parking fines though in NY. 
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:How terrible!
Oh, wait.
The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.
Nevermind...
The UN has a broad range of duties. Most people assume they’re limited to the general assembly and a couple of peacekeeping missions they saw on the news. Those people need to read more before they can form an opinion that’s worth a damn. Presently the UN performs peacekeeping operations, supports human rights,
UN peacekeeping troops are paid through the UN. There are currently peacekeeping operations in Chad, Haiti, Timor, the India/Pakistan border, Cyprus, Kosovo and Lebanon. I’ve probably missed a few.
The UN is feeding around 100 million people in 80 odd countries through its food programs and has more than 100 refugee projects around the world. This is real, tangible support, and without it millions would be dying.
The UN’s Development Program is the largest form of technology trading and support in the world. It’s impact in advancing economic development in the developing world is massive.
The World Health Organisation is the key organisation in controlling diseases like malaria. Without it millions more would be dead. It’s also improved infant mortality in more than 100 countries.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund… actually they’re dominated by Austrian School of Economics nutters and are a disaster. Let’s not talk about the world bank.
There are also countless minor administrative tasks, without which we wouldn’t have world trade. Ever wondered who schedules it so a plane flying from Newark to Frankfurt doesn’t bump into a plane flying from London to Washington?
Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.
-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't
Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.
Since the beginnings of politicking people have claimed something can be doen better for less, by getting rid of waste or inefficiency or whatever. Nine times out of ten they never give references to any relevant level of waste, they either cite a couple of anecdotes of a $1,000 piece of equipment never being used out of a billion dollar budget, or they say nothing at all. Sometimes they come into power of that organisation, and every time they fail to save money. Every time. Because it was just rhetoric and ignorance, the assumption that money must be getting wasted, without ever understanding the organisation.
So, which are you, the nine in ten or the one in ten? Got any substantial savings the UN could make?
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:When the weak are elected to protect the frightened freedom dies at the hands of those who will cut a deal. When you allow torture, when you allow jailing of the press, when you allow protests to be stamped out this is what you get. You reap what you sow.
The UN is a paper tiger with no morals. It's led by countries with hideous human rights records and is little more than a gathering of bitchy diplomats. It needs a teardown and total restructuring.
Read my response above. The UN is a lot more than the General Assembly.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@sebster - and of that list, how does freedom of speech matter?
I don't think freedom of speech matters for any of that stuff.
The UN doesn't censor, doesn't provide worldwide news or have a press corps.
My whole point about the UN freedom of speech bit is "so what?", and your post doesn't change that.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And this is the truly interesting thing to me. Which came first? The Ten Commandments, or the general idea that being a bastard to people isn't the best way to get ahead in life? Now, this is a difficult thing to discuss as we have all been brought up in a world which, regardless of which denomination or faith you follow, they tend to agree that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide line on how not to be a knob to your neighbour. As such, I find it very hard to think that the things ruled in the Ten Commandments were ever all that socially acceptable. I mean, before they were written, I think I'd still have been pissed off with you if you knobbed my Missus behind my back, and probably feel quite bad about hacking you into tiny bits.
Funnily enough, we don't as a society even follow the ten commandments. Have you read them?
The commandments break down into;
Stuff that’s illegal that was illegal in every society before and has been illegal in every society since;
You shall not kill
You shall not steal
Stuff that isn’t illegal but is a nice moral looked upon well in society;
Honor your father and mother
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
Stuff that isn’t illegal, and isn’t even a moral for the most part, in fact we are proud as a society that people are free to accept or ignore this at their pleasure;
You shall have no other gods before me & You shall not make for yourself an idol
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Stuff that isn’t illegal, isn’t immoral and is actually thought of as a good thing;
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife & You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour (well, maybe not the wife part but as a capitalist society the whole thing works because we covet other people’s stuff).
Stuff that isn’t a moral, or a law or much of anything really, just God making a statement;
“I am the Lord your God”
So yeah, the idea that the ten commandments somehow represent the origins of law? Bunkum. The bible on the whole plays a significant part along with a pile of other texts, but that part of the old testament by itself is pretty irrelevant.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:@sebster - and of that list, how does freedom of speech matter?
I don't think freedom of speech matters for any of that stuff.
The UN doesn't censor, doesn't provide worldwide news or have a press corps.
My whole point about the UN freedom of speech bit is "so what?", and your post doesn't change that.
You said the UN doesn’t do anything. It was demonstrably wrong.
In terms of freedom of speech, I think people make the mistake of only looking at two kinds of countries. They look at powerful developed countries and they look at pariah nations.
In the case of a country like the US, the UN has little influence. But the US is really big, developed country. If you instead look at a smaller country, one more dependant on UN economic develop and humanitarian programs, and it becomes a very different kettle of fish.
In the case of a country like North Korea, the UN has little influence, because North Korea doesn’t care what anyone thinks about them. But few developing countries want to be anything like N Korea, they want to be like the US. And to be like the US they need access to the development programs of the UN, they need access to international trade and all kinds of similar things. When UN reports cite human rights abuses, they lose access to these things.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
So they have to go to place with nice skiing. I see, its all about dialog. Good thing my tax dollars are going to that instead of directly to a charity that is actually using those dollars.
Oh well, the efficacy of the UN is best served in a different topic.
What place with nice skiing? The Hague? Switzerland? Historically neutral countries/city-states that have served as fora for negotiation since long before the UN was even a glimmer in the eye of Woodrow Wilson?
I really don't see what you're criticizing. The UN is about as efficient as any major, international NGO. The people that work there make about as much, and often much less, than comparable officials in the Red Cross, or Amnesty International. That isn't to say that the organization doesn't have it shortcomings. It most certainly does. But once you recognize it for what it is, a massive NGO, those shortcomings seem less like failures, and more like the limitations of reality.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Let's not forget, it was the USA that instrumental in setting up the League Of Nations after WW1 and the UN after WW2.
If the USA wishes the UN to be an effective supranational organisation, it needs to effectively engage with the UN, rather than criticise and fail to support it in the hope it will collapse and be able to replace it with something better.
221
Post by: Frazzled
End it. Don't mend it!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
N.B. The biggest failing of the UN is that it is comprised of member States who act like a bunch of spoiled little brats when it comes to making a group deicision.
So, is that the organisation at fault, or the members? For example, the invasion of Iraq went ahead because no matter what, France stated it would veto *any* resolution to that end. Ergo, Resolution could not be passed, so no point beating about the bush.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Seriously, the UN needs to DIAF anyway. The world doesn't need a global watchdog; we WILL destroy ourselves sooner or later, the UN is just helping to accelerate the process.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kilkrazy wrote:If the USA wishes the UN to be an effective supranational organisation
Protip: It doesn't
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Exactly. Once they found out the other nations wanted a say, so the UN couldn't be a rubber stamp to give supranational legitimacy to US foreign policies, they lost interest.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly. Once they found out the other nations wanted a say, so the UN couldn't be a rubber stamp to give supranational legitimacy to US foreign policies, they lost interest.
Well that is a bit of an oversimplification, but yeah.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
The world doesn't need a global watchdog;
The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems. The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china). The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ShumaGorath wrote:The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people
Yeah, *totally* unlike the US...
Quite frankly, having been in both countries, China and Russia are just about as free as in the US. Just their systems are differnt. And if you want to talk about freedom, I welcome you to take your rights and butt heads with Homeland Security at any time. Go ahead, I *dare* you.
If anything, with 1B+ people India should take Britain's "permanent" seat, and Germany should have France's. But the idea of unseating the world's most populous country? Nonsense.
Really, the UNSC's permanent members should be:
- China
- India
- USA
- Russia
- Germany
The rest are just way too small to deserve permanent seats.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Japan is bigger than Germany.
Indonesia is bigger than Russia.
The EU is bigger than the USA.
It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The EU isn't a country though KK.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
So?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's got a united currency, a united government and a united immigration policy. It's not that different from the US.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Countries comprise the members not, organizations.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:The EU isn't a country though KK.
Yet...
There's moves for a common Foreign secretary and the defense force gets more entwined by the year.
Something I'm decidedly mixed about, not the theory, but the actual practise of what we appear to be getting.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Countries comprise the members not, organizations.
But the US doesn't think the UN works, so maybe it's time for a change.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Cool. Do we have to belong?
1423
Post by: dienekes96
So, the UN is made up of countries, not consortiums.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Kilkrazy wrote:It's got a united currency, a united government and a united immigration policy. It's not that different from the US.
Except we kick ass and the EU is lame.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Cool. Do we have to belong?
You helped set it up. As a charter member, surely the USA can suggest ways of reforming or ending it, or at least a graceful way of leaving.
In budget terms the USA shirked its responsibility decades ago, starting under Reagan.
5534
Post by: dogma
ShumaGorath wrote:
The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems.
True.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china).
False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is. The fact that the 20th century has seen some horribly oppressive fascist states does not change the fact that, for many, many centuries, humanity got along just fine without free, democratic elections. There is this ridiculous American notion that the ideals of freedom, and liberty somehow began with the Revolutionary War. They didn't. Indeed, for the first 100 years or so the United States was not all that different from the British Empire except in that it lacked overseas colonies.
The disparity between the very bottom, and the very top, has been about the same throughout the entire course of human history. When we imagine the wealth of kings in the modern age we think they lived lives as comfortably as our own benevolent overlords, but they didn't. The average monarch in 15th century Europe lived a life roughly as comfortable as that of the average middle class American citizen. Wealth was highly centralize, but it also flowed freely throughout the various Imperial holdings around the globe such that all participants prospered, not just Imperial powers.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.
If it didn't exist the UN would be far less effective than it currently is. There is no surer way to get the modern powers that be to completely withdraw from the UN than to eliminate the Security council. And, as much as the United States might not support the UN, it is better to have some of their support than none at all. I mean really, what good is a UN resolution if the most powerful nations in the world simply ignore it?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kilkrazy wrote:Japan is bigger than Germany.
Indonesia is bigger than Russia.
The EU is bigger than the USA.
It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.
Japan is East Asia, and subsumes under China
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC. Besides, they're South Asia, so subsumed under India.
The EU isn't a country, it's the PC name for GrossDeutschland, so they're subsumed under Germany.
So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
Explain.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
JohnHwangDD wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Japan is bigger than Germany.
Indonesia is bigger than Russia.
The EU is bigger than the USA.
It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.
Japan is East Asia, and subsumes under China
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC. Besides, they're South Asia, so subsumed under India.
The EU isn't a country, it's the PC name for GrossDeutschland, so they're subsumed under Germany.
So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).
Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is.
Except both are supposedly states with "representative" governance (not democracy, but government that represents the will and wishes of its people). In russia it's just a straight up lie, it's the united russia of putinville. chinas been improving bit by bit for years but it's moving quite slow. Both states block obvious measures in the international scene to maintain the validity of their own forms of governance (such as blocking interference in african crisis'). Both do so under the auspices of the opinion that independence of a national government from foreign bodies, including the UN is paramount. They do it so that they don't seem hypocrites when their own houses are very much not in order, and they do it so that the UN is further crippled in meddling with their own affairs. If you want strike "democracy" from my quote. The freedom of press, religion, and the legal mobility of station are much more important. As is racial, religious, and gender equality in each. Something neither the second or third most important bodies on the council have in good measure.
If it didn't exist the UN would be far less effective than it currently is. There is no surer way to get the modern powers that be to completely withdraw from the UN than to eliminate the Security council. And, as much as the United States might not support the UN, it is better to have some of their support than none at all. I mean really, what good is a UN resolution if the most powerful nations in the world simply ignore it?
The council gives the nations within it undue power unbefitting of the state of the world. It doesn't truly function as it stands now, and I agree without it the UN would cease to function. Hence my belief that the UN needs a teardown and restructuring or that in the very least the function and makeup of the security council needs to be reworked.
Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.
He does that.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
ShumaGorath wrote:
The world doesn't need a global watchdog;
The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems. The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china).
The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.
The end result is the same. Global policy means NOTHING to the extremists. It also means nothing when the U.S. wants what they want (Invading Iraq), or a unconcerned country wants a nuclear program (N. Korea), or a warlord wants to steal medical supplies (several in Africa and S. America). Economic sanctions don't mean squat when the global economy tanks; We are ALL poor now. The fact is, outside of military conquest there is simply, no way to force a country to comply. All the UN does is sit and prattle on all day.
Our global 'community' is strife with conflicting views, creeds, and religions, most of which are anathema to any other. Unless this changes, ( ) the human race is completely f$%#@d. We WILL be our own destruction.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
Explain.
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
____
Kilkrazy wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).
Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.
Of course I am. I'm an American, and that's the American way...
1309
Post by: Lordhat
JohnHwangDD wrote:dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
Explain.
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
____
Kilkrazy wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).
Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.
Of course I am. I'm an American, and that's the American way...
And it's appropriate since we made up the UN in the first place
5534
Post by: dogma
ShumaGorath wrote:
Except both are supposedly states with "representative" governance (not democracy, but government that represents the will and wishes of its people). In russia it's just a straight up lie, it's the united russia of putinville.
Eh, that remains to be seen. Putin has significant control over the outcome of elections, but that has as much to do with the complete and utter lack of political infrastructure as anything else. No one opposes Vlad the Judo Instructor because everyone that might want to already benefits from being in his system. Though it will be interesting to see if Dimitri make an attempt at holding onto the Presidency now that he has extended the term out to 6 years.
ShumaGorath wrote:
chinas been improving bit by bit for years but it's moving quite slow.
There are a billion people in that nation. The fact that it has progressed as quickly as it has is absolutely phenomenal.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Both states block obvious measures in the international scene to maintain the validity of their own forms of governance (such as blocking interference in african crisis'). Both do so under the auspices of the opinion that independence of a national government from foreign bodies, including the UN is paramount.
This has been waning of late. The Chinese actually supported UN proposals for a cease-fire in Gaza, as did Russia. True, this was not actual intervention, but it is far more than either state has been willing to do in the past.
ShumaGorath wrote:
They do it so that they don't seem hypocrites when their own houses are very much not in order, and they do it so that the UN is further crippled in meddling with their own affairs.
They also do it because correcting human rights abuses is beyond the capacity of both states. China needs its iron first to administer to its massive population across a colossal wealth gap, and Russia needs it for similar reasons only replacing the wealth gap with massive stretches of nearly lawless territory.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If you want strike "democracy" from my quote. The freedom of press, religion, and the legal mobility of station are much more important. As is racial, religious, and gender equality in each. Something neither the second or third most important bodies on the council have in good measure.
Honestly, those aren't that important in matters of development. Developed nations have the ability to open their societies as they face less internal pressure due to social inequities. Developing countries have no similar capacity. You don't get to sublimate phases of national development. It simply isn't possible.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The council gives the nations within it undue power unbefitting of the state of the world. It doesn't truly function as it stands now, and I agree without it the UN would cease to function. Hence my belief that the UN needs a teardown and restructuring or that in the very least the function and makeup of the security council needs to be reworked.
I agree the security council needs to be reworked. Though, realistically, insofar as the UN does not supply combat ready forces it really doesn't matter.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Our global 'community' is strife with conflicting views, creeds, and religions, most of which are anathema to any other. Unless this changes, ( ) the human race is completely f$%#@d. We WILL be our own destruction.
Ahh the education of the self educated. Learn history from internet forums and you end up a shriveled husk of a human without a hope to be found in you.
The end result is the same. Global policy means NOTHING to the extremists. It also means nothing when the U.S. wants what they want (Invading Iraq), or a unconcerned country wants a nuclear program (N. Korea), or a warlord wants to steal medical supplies (several in Africa and S. America). Economic sanctions don't mean squat when the global economy tanks; We are ALL poor now. The fact is, outside of military conquest there is simply, no way to force a country to comply. All the UN does is sit and prattle on all day.
Prevention of nuclear proliferation has actually been quite successful under the UN. It's just increasingly hard to do as nuclear weapons are increasingly easy to make(and north korea doesn't exactly interact with the UN much). As for global economic sanctions, they mean more than most think. You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis. Your last sentence shows you don't really understand geopolitical interaction.
5470
Post by: sebster
Talking about the make up of the UN doesn’t matter. There's plenty of arguments that Germany deserves a permanent seat ahead of France, and Japan definitely deserves a seat of its own. Nations like India are more debatable, as the permanent seats on the Security Council represent power, not population, and India still has next to no force projection and largely irrelevant economic production (it’s about 10% bigger than Australia).
However, it’s important to note that you can gain access to the SC without being a permanent member. A permanent member gets veto, but that only stops something being passed that you find unacceptable, it doesn’t allow you anymore power to introduce law than any other member of the council.
The bigger issue, I think, is that at the end of the day, some people will disagree with UN decisions and declare the UN is hopeless and needs to be shut down. You can do whatever you want to the structure of the UN, you can have three or four or five tiers of power, you can have weighted voting based on a range of factors, whatever. People will still see a UN decision they don’t like and declare the whole thing hopeless.
Thing is, when our own governments form policy we don’t like very few of us say ‘therefore we shouldn’t have a government’. When someone does say that we pat them on the head, offer them a biscuit and return to adult conversation.
Yet the same thing isn’t true when people say the UN should fold because they passed a resolution people don’t like. It’s a weird thing.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
I recommend you stop talking.
dogma wrote:False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is. The fact that the 20th century has seen some horribly oppressive fascist states does not change the fact that, for many, many centuries, humanity got along just fine without free, democratic elections. There is this ridiculous American notion that the ideals of freedom, and liberty somehow began with the Revolutionary War. They didn't. Indeed, for the first 100 years or so the United States was not all that different from the British Empire except in that it lacked overseas colonies.
The disparity between the very bottom, and the very top, has been about the same throughout the entire course of human history. When we imagine the wealth of kings in the modern age we think they lived lives as comfortably as our own benevolent overlords, but they didn't. The average monarch in 15th century Europe lived a life roughly as comfortable as that of the average middle class American citizen. Wealth was highly centralize, but it also flowed freely throughout the various Imperial holdings around the globe such that all participants prospered, not just Imperial powers.
It was quite an awakening when I was in China to see that life was pretty much just like life elsewhere. I had these assumptions in the back of my head about how life must be in China under that government, and when I went there they just weren’t true. But that doesn’t mean life there is just the same as elsewhere.
There are human rights abuses, challenging government is likely to land you in jail. Corruption is rampant, and government will quickly close ranks to protect their. There is a large amount of crime that is allowed to flourish because it target the poor and minorities.
But none of that means China shouldn’t be a permanent member of the UNSC. They represent significant power, are going to become more powerful. Human rights aside, its important for the UN to represent basic power, and that means China needs a permanent seat.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ShumaGorath wrote:You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis.
The threat of sanctions presumes that those impacted will have some say in being able to right things. The sanctions in North Korea aren't having any effect aside from impoverishing the people. Kim Il Jong is still quite fat, so he personally isn't suffering. Only the people governed suffer. I swear, if the CIA could sanction just one assassination or coup by force, the human misery to be averted in North Korea would be tremendous...
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
Right, bigot, I forgot.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
I recommend you stop talking.
I recommend that you spend some time in a Muslim country. Especially if you're married / have a daughter / love your mother. Even a day would do. I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live. I would far rather live in "communist" China or Eastern Europe than any Muslim state.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
Right, bigot, I forgot.
Not all bigotry is wrong.
I have no problem with being labeled anti-Muslim-statist. Indeed, I don't support *any* religious states, and that includes Israel and the Vatican.
I think that religious states are an abomination as far as human rights and human freedoms go.
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not all bigotry is wrong.
I have no problem with being labeled anti-Muslim-statist. Indeed, I don't support *any* religious states, and that includes Israel and the Vatican.
I think that religious states are an abomination as far as human rights and human freedoms go.
Haven't you argued for the use of Judeo-Christian morals as guiding principles in American lawmaking?
Either way, all bigotry is wrong. It is the assumption that your worldview is the only acceptable one, and that you could never be mistaken, or misinformed.
Also, Indonesia just has a majority Muslim population, it is not a Muslim state.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I have probably stated that American / Western law comes from a society that is historically derived from Judeo-Christian principles. I have never argued that Judeo-Christian morals should form the basis for any American law. There is an important distinction to be understood between the two points above.
Again, I see nothing wrong with certain forms of informed bigotry, and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:sebster wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.
I recommend you stop talking.
I recommend that you spend some time in a Muslim country.
Especially if you're married / have a daughter / love your mother.
Even a day would do.
I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.
I would far rather live in "communist" China or Eastern Europe than any Muslim state.
Yeah, there are serious problems with core freedoms in those states. But there all sorts of things wrong with core freedoms in Russia and China as well, but you seem alright with giving them permanency on the UNSC.
More than anything, you need to stop talking because you seem to have no idea what permanency is about. It isn’t about being a shining beacon of human rights and progress. It’s about being big enough and scary enough that if the UN started passing SC decisions that you don’t agree with, then either there’d be a war or the UN would collapse. Or probably both.
Being a muslim state has nothing to do with anything relevant to the issue. When combined with the pass you give to other states, it’s just a bizarre thing to bring up.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I know full well what permanancy is about (veto power), and I'm very well aware that human rights has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I also know that having any Muslim-friendly state on the UNSC would pretty much bring things to a grinding halt.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
JohnHwangDD wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis.
The threat of sanctions presumes that those impacted will have some say in being able to right things. The sanctions in North Korea aren't having any effect aside from impoverishing the people. Kim Il Jong is still quite fat, so he personally isn't suffering. Only the people governed suffer. I swear, if the CIA could sanction just one assassination or coup by force, the human misery to be averted in North Korea would be tremendous...
Sanctions work the same way as any international punitive measure. They only work insofar as the country is connected to the international community. Thinking they don't work at all because they don't work in extreme situations is idiocy.
I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.
And what were you doing in said countries?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ShumaGorath wrote:
I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.
And what were you doing in said countries?
Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.
Of course, in such countries, there's not a whole lot to do aside from seeing the self-proclaimed glory of the "king", due to imposed restrictions.
Coming from the egalitarian, "free" West (or even China), it's really horrible.
It is the closest thing I can think of to living under the Ecclesiarchy in the soul-destroying grimdark of the Emperor's 40k.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.
And which countries were these?
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:I know full well what permanancy is about (veto power), and I'm very well aware that human rights has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I also know that having any Muslim-friendly state on the UNSC would pretty much bring things to a grinding halt.
Hang on, what? You say you understand how permanency is different, but then go on to say that having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt. Do you mean having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt, because there are currently two Islamic nations on the UNSC and they seem to be doing about as well as ever.
Also, what on Earth has a poor record on women’s rights got to do with being able to function on the security council? I don’t think Indonesia should be given permanency but you’re not making any sense here.
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Again, I see nothing wrong with certain forms of informed bigotry,
Bigotry, by definition, is uninformed.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.
I dearly hope this was intended to be sarcasm.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:You say you understand how permanency is different, but then go on to say that having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt.
Quite simply, I do not believe that an Islamic state of any sort should ever have the veto power that comes from being a permanent member of the UNSC.
That is my personal opinion based on my personal observations and experiences, nothing more.
____
dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.
I dearly hope this was intended to be sarcasm.
Well, what *else* could it be?
After you called me a bigot, the only other responses I could make would degenerate things into tit-for-tat "so's your mother" exchange that I want no part of.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ShumaGorath wrote:
Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.
And which countries were these?
Why, does it really matter that much?
Where I went, they're more progressive places, but the grimdark is always in the background like metastasized cancer.
"Not a bad place to visit, wouldn't ever want to live there"
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
JohnHwangDD wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.
And which countries were these?
Why, does it really matter that much?
Where I went, they're more progressive places, but the grimdark is always in the background like metastasized cancer.
"Not a bad place to visit, wouldn't ever want to live there"
I'm dissecting your story in order to help you actually form a complete sentence rather than "I've been to the dark muslim apocalypse". I'm also at least making the attempt to see if you're lying(kind).
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:Quite simply, I do not believe that an Islamic state of any sort should ever have the veto power that comes from being a permanent member of the UNSC.
That is my personal opinion based on my personal observations and experiences, nothing more.
Yeah, but they’re personal observations that have nothing to do with how the UN works. Permanent SC members don’t have powers beyond ordinary SC members other than veto.
What this veto power means is that you recognise certain countries around the world are big enough and ugly enough that if they disagree with a SC resolution, and the SC pushes it through anyway the result is either war or dissolution of the SC, probably both. So instead you give those big countries veto power, so when the UNSC passes a motion declaring Chechnya a human rights disaster and orders Russia out under force, Russia says ‘no you don’t, we have the bomb so here’s a veto’. It doesn’t matter what religion the country is, what life is like there or anything else. It’s an acknowledgement of their power. Or at least the perception of their power. Or the perception of their power in 1945 that’s just kind of hung around despite massive changes to the world.
Now, you might say in terms of second and third tier powers accessing the UNSC other factors also count (and I guess Indonesia could be a third tier power, probably fourth). But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about permanent members, and it’s all about power, and has only ever been about power. Russia and China are there, and were there during the worst moments of their governments.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
In that case, it doesn't actually matter which countries specifically, even if you've actually toured their yourself.
Each person brings their own perspectives in and takes their own lessons out. So what I find horrible, may not matter to you in the least.
That's why I consider the experience as more of a personal thing.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Quite simply, I do not believe that an Islamic state of any sort should ever have the veto power that comes from being a permanent member of the UNSC.
That is my personal opinion based on my personal observations and experiences, nothing more.
Yeah, but they’re personal observations that have nothing to do with how the UN works.
I never said that it did.
I just don't believe that it is in the best interest of the world to have Muslim states as permanent members of the UNSC.
You're the one blowing this up into something else.
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, what *else* could it be?
After you called me a bigot, the only other responses I could make would degenerate things into tit-for-tat "so's your mother" exchange that I want no part of.
I assumed that's what you wanted all along, honestly. Especially after you decided to classify Indonesia as a theocratic state just because it has a Muslim majority.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:I never said that it did.
I just don't believe that it is in the best interest of the world to have Muslim states as permanent members of the UNSC.
You're the one blowing this up into something else.
Don’t try and change your story. You said;
“Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.”
I guess you meant permanency, because there are currently two Islamic countries on the UNSC (Turkey and Libya).
Regardless, you said a country shouldn’t get permanency on the UNSC because it’s Islamic. It shows a chronic misunderstanding of how and why permanency is granted.
I’m not blowing it up into anything more than what it is. I’ve made no comment on how or why you picked Islam out as being unacceptable, and not, say, Stalinist Russia. I’ve kept to a simple argument that permanency has nothing to do with how nice a country it is. In each post you’ve failed to refute that, accept that or address it in any way. Really, you’ve done nothing but repeat your original premise, except this last time where you tried to slightly change your argument.
Either form an argument to dispute my point, or accept you got ahead of yourself and said something that didn’t make any sense.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
86% Muslim isn't "just" a majority, particularly when it extends to things like Muslim-bloc anti-Israeli national policy and action.
That is, it's one thing to have a religious majority (the US is majority Christian). It's quite another to have it dictate political and social norms that drive day-to-day mainline discrimination.
And I completely recognize that Indonesia is relatively benign as far as such states go. But even so, with the brewing fundamentalists (Aceh), it's far too dangerous to make them permanent.
Heck, if it looked like fundamentalist Catholics were going to take over France, I'd be worried there, too!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:I just don't believe that it is in the best interest of the world to have Muslim states as permanent members of the UNSC.
Don’t try and change your story.
You said; “Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.”
Regardless, you said a country shouldn’t get permanency on the UNSC because it’s Islamic.
Either form an argument to dispute my point, or accept you got ahead of yourself and said something that didn’t make any sense.
How about you try to post while understanding context rather than claiming victory on the basis of nothing? Such as the fact that everybody was shorthanding "UNSC" and " SC"to mean "permanent members of the UNSC", and that my initial comment was in that vein.
So I've never changed any story.
Now, I said that, and I believe that. You seem to think that I believe that non-Muslim is a de jure or de facto requirement of UNSC (permanent) membership. That is clearly false. You are taking the word "can" far too strongly and literally in the sense of 'can-able'. My opinion is that it would be a terrible thing if a Muslim country ever received permanent membership. So perhaps I ought to have worded it as “Indonesia is Muslim, so they should not ever be part of the UNSC.” Or maybe “Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC and have things go well.”
I will continue to state that "(it is my continuing personal opinion that) a country shouldn't get permanency on the UNSC because it's Islamic". That means that I cannot think of a single majority-Muslim country that I would like to see as a permanent member of the UNSC. Do you understand that?
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:[How about you try to post while understanding context rather than claiming victory on the basis of nothing? Such as the fact that everybody was shorthanding "UNSC" and "SC"to mean "permanent members of the UNSC", and that my initial comment was in that vein.
So I've never changed any story.
Now, I said that, and I believe that. You seem to think that I believe that non-Muslim is a de jure or de facto requirement of UNSC (permanent) membership. That is clearly false. You are taking the word "can" far too strongly and literally in the sense of 'can-able'. My opinion is that it would be a terrible thing if a Muslim country ever received permanent membership. So perhaps I ought to have worded it as “Indonesia is Muslim, so they should not ever be part of the UNSC.” Or maybe “Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC and have things go well.”
I will continue to state that "(it is my continuing personal opinion that) a country shouldn't get permanency on the UNSC because it's Islamic". That means that I cannot think of a single majority-Muslim country that I would like to see as a permanent member of the UNSC. Do you understand that?
Sorry, I was unclear there. In my earlier post I was just pointing out the difference between UNSC membership and permanency. I had assumed you were talking about that and was just clarifying that. I wasn’t saying that was you changing your story.
My comment on the change in your story was on you moving from ‘can’t be’ to ‘it would be bad if’. These are considerably different statements.
The latter can be argued on grounds of ‘Muslims be bad’, as you’ve been doing. There’s a whole pile of bigotry in there, but I can’t really bothered going into it. I’d rather just stick to talking about the UN.
The former can’t be argued on those grounds, because permanency has nothing to do with how nice a country you are. It’s about how powerful you are, plain and simple. As such, it’s irrelevant if you’re Islamic or not, if you’re powerful enough you get a spot. Even still, you’re arguing based on ‘it would be bad if they were given permanency’, which is still indefensible because once a country is powerful enough to demand veto power, its best for everyone to get it. The alternative is to allow the UNSC to authorise military operations that world powers disagree with, and that’s the path to disaster. You need to shift to some kind of ‘it would be bad if Indonesia became powerful enough to need permanency’.
I’ve tried to get you to retract that claim and go with ‘shouldn’t be’, and then form a ‘shouldn’t be’ argument that acknowledges the basic workings of the UN, but you’ve been obstinate to say the least.
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
IMNSHO, the biggest problem with the UN is the veto power the security counsel has. I'd like to see that removed, along with the idea of permanent members, but that's never going to happen. The UN is a messy hodgepodge of compromises, but it's likely the best super-national organization we're likely ever gonna get.
5470
Post by: sebster
chaplaingrabthar wrote:IMNSHO, the biggest problem with the UN is the veto power the security counsel has. I'd like to see that removed, along with the idea of permanent members, but that's never going to happen. The UN is a messy hodgepodge of compromises, but it's likely the best super-national organization we're likely ever gonna get.
Except, as I was saying to Jon, if a motion is passed authorising a troop deployment that one of the big boys disagrees with, you’ve got real problems. What if a motion had been passed where UN troops were to force the Russians out of Chechnya. Or if a motion were passed tomorrow that ordered the US out of Iraq.
Nothing to do with right or wrong, just a way of ensuring things don’t go through the UN that are likely to lead to war between major powers.
But I agree in general. It's a hodge podge, and has a lot limitations. Still does a lot more good than most people to recognise.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Moderation on
I am closing this thread. As I have been an active participant thats all I am doing. However, the discussion of whether a Dakka member is a bigot is borderline trolling on Dakka and I remind everyone of the Dakka forum rules.
Moderation off.
|
|
