<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tomasz Rola wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, samantha wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Tomasz Rola wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words:
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that
the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But
the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an
agent of the State ..."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I disagree vehemently with this! The "community" is only a collection of
individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the individuals it
is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is precisely what makes
horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying even that one time
symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual and individual rights,
America.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
And now I also am controversial.
I have interpreted the above quotation out of context of whatever else
Hitler did/said (and without counting how many people have been killed
because of his inspiration). My understanding was that everybody
(including individuals) should pay attention to the fact, that he is
not alone and in fact a part of community. Unless he wants to be in a
community of one. Which of course he can. How about founding his own
hospital, because, well, health insurance is all about community sharing
risks and expenditures?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Being in a community is wonderful precisely to the degree that you can
trade to benefit with others freely. It allows specialization and
WIN-WIN across the board when that freedom of action is fully
respected. Of course it is beneficial to have others around. That
does not mean that the collection of all supersedes the very needs and
rights of the individual which are the context of any benefit derived.
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As of individualism in America, well while I've been never interested in
looking for hard facts, my understanding is, it is as rare in America as
anywhere else, including Antarctica. But it's optimistic that there are
more individualists in USA than on the Moon and Mars combined (did I
mention that I am optimist under my hard skin?). The fact that
individualism is praised by everybody has nothing to do with reality.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Empty blather.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And in rare cases this very same individualism takes such monstrous form,
that the whole country, both big and rich, and admirable in many aspects,
gets endangered of being drowned to the bottom with financial crisis. If
the guys who did this were individuals, I would rather see them
controlled, just a little. So that they don't shit into bank accounts of
all of us.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The crisis came precisely from massively violating individual rights
and freedom NOT from upholding them.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I hope this is sarcasm.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It was... partially. If you didn't know the candidate's name was Hitler,
maybe you would feel surprised about his words, but not as offended as you
were.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But
before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I am
no better than a mob.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in which
case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Why you think so? My individual opinion is always relevant, but
realistically, it will not always be paid attention to by other people.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I should have said that your individual right and decision about what
to do with your own life and property is not relevant under your
scenario. Not merely your opinion. Rights are not a matter of
opinion only.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is weak
thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and agree
with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody does so".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">You sound like a healthy individualist there.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
So maybe I am one. Surprised?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic
world for blasphemy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force
to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are you
really sure you want to defend this?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I
consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place. But
by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in principle find
with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" "authorities".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Great. First of all, who should disallow such authorities? You mean, there
is somebody on this planet who has the right to insist how people in
other, independent countries should make their own choices? How is this
different from what those bad authorities do? Because it is "us" telling
"them" - so this is better than "them" telling "us"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
The "authorities" are fine as long as they have no power whatsoever to
force their opinions on individuals. I mean that even in a single
country no other person or group of persons has any right to insist you
do what they wish rather than what you wish unless what you wish
directly violates the rights of others. The international case is
just an extension.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And yes, I am not sure about it but from what I heard it were people in
those countries themselves, who chosed their authorities (at least, they
allowed them to rise). Even in Afghanistan, there was communist (i.e.
definitely non-islamic) government. How did it fail? There was no support
for it. And there was support for Talibans. So they took over. And they
were bad. But they were supported, at least for some time. So, if their
own people supported them and allowed for their taking power, what we
should do?
</pre>
</blockquote>
There is no right to chose someone to take away your rights. I think
you know better than to assume that one can always stop the rising of
oppressors. So if not enough people effectively oppose a government
that runs roughshod over human rights of the people then none of the
people have anything really to complain about and it is OK?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We can _suggest_ them that being intollerant and violent is a bad thing
and they are doing disservice to themselves with it. We should execute (or
otherwise neutralise) terrorists who come to us, trying to force us to
their way by violence (we can kill them abroad too, if this is the best
way of dealing with them). Other than this, we don't have much to say
about the lives of ordinary folk (unless they themselves ask for help).</pre>
</blockquote>
We may not have the right to invade another country to impose our
values on them. However we had best be damn clear about what our
values are and use them to judge cleanly what is and is not acceptable
behavior of governments and authorities. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> My
personal limits are, when there is a country wide hunger and concentration
camps (or when there is another suggestion that masses are being forced
to something they don't like). However, from what I see, in such case
almost nobody blows the whistle (and this repeats over and over, during
last 100 years).
</pre>
</blockquote>
So as long as the lights are on, most fed and most out of prison any
other abrogations of human rights are just fine with you?<br>
<br>
BTW, the US incarcerates more people per capita and numerically than in
nation ever. Which is an utter travesty especially considering the
majority are imprisoned for victimless crimes. Yet the lights are on
and people are well fed and there are no concentration camps unless you
count prisons and perhaps public schools. :)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of
weakness or lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible
cultural shock, that Islamic world experienced after WW2.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Am I excusing them? If I say, for example, that drug abusers and criminals
come from dysfunctional families, is it excusing?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. But then it is not condemning either.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
One can deal with criminals, and new ones will keep coming. If you don't
want to understand the roots of the problem, you will not solve it. Prove
me wrong. Really, I will be delighted to improve.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't buy that criminals only arise from broken homes and other less
than optimal conditions. If you are asserting they do only so arise
then the burden of proof is on you.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
There was (and is) a lot of unexcusable breach of human rights in a number
of countries. Some (not all) of those countries are Islamic. There are
also countries, from which I don't hear about such breaches and again,
some of them are Islamic. So, bad things happen in some Islamic countries
and don't happen in some other Islamic countries.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep. The US abuses human rights quite a bit. And I agree that it is
not at all an Islamic problem and that not all Islamic variants are
problematic. The main discriminator of when Islam is bad may well be
when there is not sufficient separation between religion and government.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Is it logical to blame _all_ Islamic countries? Is it just? If you accept
not being just and right, what is your entitlement to survival?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That they excuse abuse of human rights on religious grounds is not
terribly relevant to me. The abuse of human rights is what I care
about and care is noticed and roundly condemned in whatever
circumstances it arises.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Irrational religion (is there another kind?)? Check.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Other people's belief is not my problem (unless they believe they should
come to me with pitchforks and burning torches). If you really believe
irrational religion is main problem of this world, maybe you should start
cleaning your own backyard first?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't care what people believe but I have every right to laugh my ass
off and condemn stupid belief systems. And they should have no legal
coercive power over anyone.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the world, Check.
Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly do you need to examine
beyond this?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Uhum. Like, how many of them are actually guilty of this? Estimates say,
there is 1-1.5 bilion of Muslims. If they all wanted our death, we should
be already screwed long ago.
</pre>
</blockquote>
It does not matter how many. It matter that instances of such
violations are roundly condemned whenever they occur. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want to
escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you would
like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational arguments.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">*sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other way
around.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You can prove me whatever you want. Either God's existance or
nonexistance. You are welcome. When you actually show me the proof, I will
accept it (if I find it acceptable - my criteria are crearly stated, I
think).
</pre>
</blockquote>
You can't prove a negative. It is up to the asserter. What part of
that do you not understand?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Before any side shows me the proof of their being right, I refuse to
choose sides. My choice. It is also my choice to bend more towards one
side, mostly because I consider myself a humanist in the first place, and
"capitalist" next (well, not big capitalist I am really, having not so
much capital). I see no problem with this. I have seen a lot of good
people who leaned towards the same side so I am in a good company.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The failure to decide is the failure to actually grasp what is at stake
and examine and conclude based on one's understanding. It is more
about a type of cowardice than about fairness or wisdom. It does not
matter how many people do or do not think like you or whether you find
them likable folks or not.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008021645510.26377@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
Pretending that proofs from some branch of mathematics are the type of
thing required to make up your mind in this very unmathematical realm
shows a lack of understanding and imposition of requirements before
reaching conclusions that are inappropriate to the domain.<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>