So they pay lip service then increase the deficit by more than the Democrats would have - I don't see the value proposition here.
Fuck Israel
lol jay likes his politicians to be honestly dishonest, so that he can really revel in the utter lack of choice and real democracy, and pass it off as "america, bro", really urbanely and cynically, like 'cause he's read so many political science books and shit, he sees the system for what it is, in all its hypocritical-paradoxical mess. 8-)
Ahem...
EU politico-economic issues
EU politico-economic issues
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I can't see France being subject to surrender-monkey jokes for a while, after what they're doing in Mali.
It's not like they're 'fighting' a particularity well equipped, trained or for that matter even remotely combat experienced force.
Last edited by m3thod (2013-02-10 16:28:28)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Most of the Mali fighters are veterans of the Libyan civil war.
The rebels they are facing off with were trained by US Special Forces and played a hand in the overthrow of the Ghadaffi regime.m3thod wrote:
It's not like they're 'fighting' a particularity well equipped, trained or for that matter even remotely combat experienced force.
I made a post about it but everyone just forgot about Mali.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3861307
Yup. The US, UK, France helped arm and train these rebels during the civil war.Macbeth wrote:
Most of the Mali fighters are veterans of the Libyan civil war.
After the war was over they started to stir up trouble in Mali and said nations knew to stop it before the entire region became filled with governments they could not control. It had nothing to do with helping its former colonies out of honor. The Central African Republic asked the French for help and were told to fuck off. They don't care about another authoritarian regime taking its place as long as it will be just as submissive. It is why the US and UK are so willing to assist the French in Mali.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6710|Graz, Austria
The thing is, while the economy constantly needs to be governed every year, gay rights could have been done and dusted several decades ago, with no need for further "work" by politicians.
It's just the unwillingness of those politicians, who are pressured by the conservative/right-wing/bible-thumping votership.
It's just the unwillingness of those politicians, who are pressured by the conservative/right-wing/bible-thumping votership.
Thats the case for every war the US has fought since WW2, and they haven't exactly won many of them.m3thod wrote:
It's not like they're 'fighting' a particularity well equipped, trained or for that matter even remotely combat experienced force.
Fuck Israel
Umm, that's the point of a democracy, no? Everyone gets a say, even people you disagree with.globefish23 wrote:
The thing is, while the economy constantly needs to be governed every year, gay rights could have been done and dusted several decades ago, with no need for further "work" by politicians.
It's just the unwillingness of those politicians, who are pressured by the conservative/right-wing/bible-thumping votership.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Umm, that's the point of human rights, no? To tell bigots to shove their idiotic ideas.
There's certainly more pressing issues in regards to human rights than whether two people of the same gender can get married, no? In the grand scheme of things it's a rather minor issue. One that's easily rectified, yes, but it's really not THAT big of a deal. Not compared to free speech, or a free press, or a woman's right to not be raped...DrunkFace wrote:
Umm, that's the point of human rights, no? To tell bigots to shove their idiotic ideas.
The whole 'human rights' thing has been watered down to the point that it's laughable. It's a human right in France and Finland to have access to the internet. Come on.
Last edited by Jay (2013-02-11 07:26:48)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's thought of along those lines in the UK as well. Considered to impact on your quality of life if you don't have access. Think of how many things are exclusively online, what if you can't get out of the house?
People survived before the advent of the internet. It makes communication easier, yes, but lack of it does not inhibit it.PrivateVendetta wrote:
It's thought of along those lines in the UK as well. Considered to impact on your quality of life if you don't have access. Think of how many things are exclusively online, what if you can't get out of the house?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But you can't access some services NOW because of it. Before it was around there was no problem, now some companies and government services are ONLY available online. Or they have closed local branches/offices in favour of online access.
So go to a library.PrivateVendetta wrote:
But you can't access some services NOW because of it. Before it was around there was no problem, now some companies and government services are ONLY available online. Or they have closed local branches/offices in favour of online access.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But seriously, do you not see how dumb that argument is in context? "We must make it a human right so that people can access services from company's" Completely waters down the entire concept of what a human right is. Should people in rural areas have a human right to an automobile because they don't have access to mass transportation? Should people that live on islands have guaranteed access to a boat? You're talking about a convenience.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i would say the right to equal treatment and access regardless of your sexual persuasion is fairly basic, IMO.
you may say it's "small and minor", jay, because you aren't the one being told you can't enjoy the legal benefits of marriage with your beloved one. marriage is a fairly major part of 'settled' adult life, for the vast majority of people, so why are you downplaying the importance of marriage for people who just so happen to be gay? especially when it's such a minor and relatively easy thing to sort out. it's not exactly as problematic as 'economic inequality' on the civil-rights front, is it? just giving gay people equal treatment, on paper. you act like society is far too busy doing far more important stuff. it's not. it's just a minority of fundamental whackjobs and bigots who are trying to slow down the inevitable.
you may say it's "small and minor", jay, because you aren't the one being told you can't enjoy the legal benefits of marriage with your beloved one. marriage is a fairly major part of 'settled' adult life, for the vast majority of people, so why are you downplaying the importance of marriage for people who just so happen to be gay? especially when it's such a minor and relatively easy thing to sort out. it's not exactly as problematic as 'economic inequality' on the civil-rights front, is it? just giving gay people equal treatment, on paper. you act like society is far too busy doing far more important stuff. it's not. it's just a minority of fundamental whackjobs and bigots who are trying to slow down the inevitable.
Democracy in action. Democracy inherently means compromise. In the long run, gay rights will win out as the older generation dies out.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i would say the right to equal treatment and access regardless of your sexual persuasion is fairly basic, IMO.
you may say it's "small and minor", jay, because you aren't the one being told you can't enjoy the legal benefits of marriage with your beloved one. marriage is a fairly major part of 'settled' adult life, for the vast majority of people, so why are you downplaying the importance of marriage for people who just so happen to be gay? especially when it's such a minor and relatively easy thing to sort out. it's not exactly as problematic as 'economic inequality' on the civil-rights front, is it? just giving gay people equal treatment, on paper. you act like society is far too busy doing far more important stuff. it's not. it's just a minority of fundamental whackjobs and bigots who are trying to slow down the inevitable.
I'm just saying that it's not a human rights issue in the larger context of things. Life would go on if people weren't sold a marriage license by the government. Marriage in general is a convenience, not a life necessity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i'm not sure where you get this notion of a 'human right' from. it makes it sound like it's so vital and fundamental that, without it, we would die, or something. no human rights exist. all human rights are licenses from a government (or, more properly, a [civil] court). no right actually ontologically exists, out there, as something concrete. a right is something that is defined negatively - it only becomes a recognised object or issue through negation. nobody has an innate 'right' of free speech: this right only exists in an inverse relationship to its exercise. so really i don't see where you're getting this arbitrary distinction from, where one legislated right gains priority over gay marriage. if basic equality and social harmony is being infringed upon, you have a human rights issue. it doesn't really matter if its as important as breathing air.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-11 10:44:26)
Thanks a lot. Now that you've mentioned ontology, I'm probably going to spend the rest of the day surfing philosophy/metaphysics articles.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i'm not sure where you get this notion of a 'human right' from. it makes it sound like it's so vital and fundamental that, without it, we would die, or something. no human rights exist. all human rights are licenses from a government (or, more properly, a [civil] court). no right actually ontologically exists, out there, as something concrete. a right is something that is defined negatively - it only becomes a recognised object or issue through negation. nobody has an innate 'right' of free speech: this right only exists in an inverse relationship to its exercise. so really i don't see where you're getting this arbitrary distinction from, where one legislated right gains priority over gay marriage. if basic equality and social harmony is being infringed upon, you have a human rights issue. it doesn't really matter if its as important as breathing air.
but ontology and metaphysics are two very different things
note bene!
note bene!
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-11 11:09:42)
*nota
Not quite so different as you'd think. Going from the what to the how isn't a very huge leap, and could have one of those partially-merged circle graphs associated with it. Discussion about it is endlessly interesting, but deserves more time and length than I can get into at the moment before either I decide to get back to work or KJ decides that it isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
Not quite so different as you'd think. Going from the what to the how isn't a very huge leap, and could have one of those partially-merged circle graphs associated with it. Discussion about it is endlessly interesting, but deserves more time and length than I can get into at the moment before either I decide to get back to work or KJ decides that it isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
in modern philosophical discourse, ontology is normally used to distinguish from metaphysics - metaphysics still having the previous aristotlean connotations, whereas ontology has come to mean something more objective and concrete in a post-phenomenology world. sure, if you check the wikipedia, 'ontology' is a branch of metaphysics. but this doesn't have much to do with a contemporary and common philosophical usage; wikipedia is a history archive, not a scholarly resource. 'metaphysics' thesedays, in modernity, tends to be loaded with lots of mystical and theological bullshit. ontology is concrete being, post-heidegger. ontology (and being) in contemporary philosophy is anti-metaphysical. but please, tell me more that you got from wikipedia.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-11 12:32:13)
I would have to check wikipedia to see if it says what you say it does. I tend to value books a bit more in regards to philosophy and science. Note that I didn't say that they [ontology/metaphysics] were the same thing.