Freedom In the World 2009

[Iskandar]

Freedom House, a prominent American pro-democracy NGO, has released their annual Freedom In the World survey, which measures the state of political freedom and civil liberties worldwide. Each nation is classified as Free, Partly Free or Not Free.

According to the report, the state of freedom declined in 2008. Out of the world's 193 sovereign nation-states and 16 disputed territories, 89 (46%) could be considered free, 62 (36%) partly free, and 42 (22%) not free.

Here is a link to the report: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=445

And a map of the world according to the results of the survey: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09.pdf

What do you think? Is freedom on the retreat worldwide? Or are the prospects for democracy still strong, and this year's setbacks temporary? I personally find it encouraging that several Middle Eastern nations were considered partly free (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Yemen) as well as many in sub-Saharan Africa. But most states in Asia as well as many in Africa are still authoritarian.

[Aaron]

Democracy =/= freedom, in my opinion.

[808]

Free countries became a little bit less free, sure.

[Der Übermensch]

Democracy =/= freedom, in my opinion.

True, they aren't synonyms, but countries based on democratic ideals disproportionally exhibit better acknowledged civil liberties and such than other types of governmental models.

[Iskandar]

There is a strong correlation. The free countries are all democracies as far as I know. There are some democratic countries which are only partly free though, notably some in South America, the Balkans and Africa.

[Der Übermensch]

Correlation doesn't prove causation :p

But yeah, I don't think benevolent fascism ever really came into vogue.

[BridgeToSolace]

The people of Somalia are the freest in the world.

/siva

[Iskandar]

They're among the least free in fact. Except for Somaliland which is de facto independent.

[Against Miik!]

Democracy =/= freedom, in my opinion.

o rly?

[jaredong]

i suppose the argument goes that democracy is not only elections (procedural democracy) but also the level of human welfare necessary to exercise your rights (substantive democracy).

So say your country has free and fair elections, but everyone's so poor they dont have the time to take out from work to be informed about candidates nor vote for them.

[Iskandar]

There are democracies which are not competitive either (single-party dominant). Japan is a good example. However that country has a good record as far as civil liberties and human rights go so they are considered one of the most free.

[Aaron]

o rly?
ya rly.

[Iskandar]

Can you name one free country which is not a democracy?

[Aaron]

Sealand.

[Iskandar]

Lol, I meant an actual country.

I see what you mean though. Democracy isn't the only way we can be free. Realistically speaking thought it is the best means for preserving our freedoms, even if sometimes that requires restrictions upon freedom.

[ridethelib]

How does restricting freedoms preserve them?

[siva_chair]

Democracy =/= freedom, in my opinion.

This.

[Meatplow]

I know very little about the history of freedom in the world apart from the more obvious events.

I really couldn't speculate. Are nations generally seen as free becoming more "big brother", however? I wonder.

[TheDarkHorse]

Stability > Democracy

[siva_chair]

I know very little about the history of freedom in the world apart from the more obvious events.

I really couldn't speculate. Are nations generally seen as free becoming more "big brother", however? I wonder.

Yes, they do tend to go in that trend.

Just look at the increasing and ever-higher mountains of paper laws.

[Iskandar]

Stability > DemocracyDemocracies tend to be more stable than authoritarian regimes. See: Failed States Index.

[ridethelib]

I asked you a question.

[siva_chair]

Realistically speaking thought it is the best means for preserving our freedoms, even if sometimes that requires restrictions upon freedom.

And war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

[Iskandar]

I asked you a question.Compare free speech vs. libel.
And war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.That is one of my favourite books. I don't really know why you're quoting it though.

[siva_chair]

That is one of my favourite books. I don't really know why you're quoting it though.

Because you proposed the absurd notion that one must restrict freedoms to protect freedoms.

[Iskandar]

Because you proposed the absurd notion that one must restrict freedoms to protect freedoms.That is not absurd. The democratic system could not work without certain restrictions.

[ridethelib]

Compare free speech vs. libel.


Maybe I'm just tired and not getting it, but I do not see how laws protecting people from defamation (i.e., infringing upon freedom of speech), is protecting anyone's freedoms.

[Iskandar]

Maybe I'm just tired and not getting it, but I do not see how laws protecting people from defamation (i.e., infringing upon freedom of speech), is protecting anyone's freedoms.Your freedom not to be slandered.

[siva_chair]

That is not absurd. The democratic system could not work without certain restrictions.

The democratic system is a shitty system, then.

I find it absurd that you would advocate restricting another person's freedoms.

[Iskandar]

The democratic system is a poopty system, then.

I find it absurd that you would advocate restricting another person's freedoms.I'm not advocating it. I'm pointing out that it might be necessary.

Like how it's necessary to restrict your freedom to kill people.

[siva_chair]

Your freedom not to be slandered.

Libel and slander laws are retarded. What emotivist bullshit.

[Iskandar]

Your freedom stops where mine begins.

[siva_chair]

I'm not advocating it. I'm pointing out that it might be necessary.

Like how it's necessary to restrict your freedom to kill people.

Way to confuse freedom with power.

[siva_chair]

Your freedom stops where mine begins.

Equivocating freedom and power again.

[Iskandar]

Way to confuse freedom with power.If you are not legally constrained from killing someone, technically you do have the freedom to do so. I don't know what definition of freedom you're using but in this context I'm using the lack of constraint.

[siva_chair]

If you are not legally constrained from killing someone, technically you do have the freedom to do so. I don't know what definition of freedom you're using but in this context I'm using the lack of constraint.

Then your definition of freedom is absurd and nonsensical. Why should we listen to something absurd and nonsensical.

[Iskandar]

The burden is on you to describe why it's so, then. I thought the lack of constraint was a good definition of freedom.

[Aaron]

Representative-democracy is ineffective due to human nature, however pure democracy is feasibly hard with such large populations, so we're stuck with representative democracy. We've just got to make the most of it [ie. including sunset clauses in all legislation so it doesn't effect more than X amount of generations and remains relevant].

[siva_chair]

The burden is on you to describe why it's so, then. I thought the lack of constraint was a good definition of freedom.

The "freedom to assault or kill" and what have you inherently requirese the violation against another's person or property and therefore violates the clause of total liberty and is not universally applicable. Your definition of freedom is self-contradicting. That is why it is absurd.

I've got a better definition:

the absence of invasion/agression by another of any individual's person or property.

This universally applicable and does not contradict itself.

[Der Übermensch]

Then your definition of freedom is absurd and nonsensical. Why should we listen to something absurd and nonsensical.

I think you are confusing Freedom with Liberty?

[mph4ever]

i thought iraq was freer than this suggests. it defines not free as when basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied. shouldn't it be partly free?

btw, i'm colour blind so may be just reading the map wrong but i don't think so

[Light Fantastic]

oh a report with biased and arbitrary definitions of freedom how useful

[siva_chair]

I think you are confusing Freedom with Liberty?

No.

Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.

Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, is generally considered in modern time to be a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

From wikipedia.

Freedom and liberty are synonymous in this context.

[TheDarkHorse]

Democracies tend to be more stable than authoritarian regimes. See: Failed States Index.

see: The Middle East

Democracy isn't for everyone. It can prove to be very unstable in certain circumstances.

[hismajestythepope]

Democracy =/= freedom, in my opinion.

seriously.

like, America is apparently free, and we're a republic.

And seriously, WHO THE **** NEEDS A MAP TO SHOW THEM THIS ****?

[mph4ever]

seriously.

like, America is apparently free, and we're a republic.

And seriously, WHO THE **** NEEDS A MAP TO SHOW THEM THIS ****?


you obviously haven't played geosense. http://www.geosense.net/

the whole planet needs a map

[Iskandar]

i thought iraq was freer than this suggests. it defines not free as when basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied. shouldn't it be partly free?

btw, i'm colour blind so may be just reading the map wrong but i don't think soWell, the government is barely functioning and the country is in a state of civil war, so yeah.

I believe it's colour-blind compliant.
see: The Middle EastIf you think that's stability. The Soviet Union appeared stable from the outside up until its collapse.

[TheDarkHorse]

If you think that's stability. The Soviet Union appeared stable from the outside up until its collapse.
:sigh:

like everything, this went right over your head

let me try this again: Stability > Democracy. In other words, I value stability over democracy. Look at the middle east: you give them democracy at the cost of stability when they choose to elect extremists.

[Mr. Ron]

http://i44.tinypic.com/35mmy4n.jpg

[Iskandar]

:sigh:

like everything, this went right over your headNo need for ad hominems.
let me try this again: Stability > Democracy. In other words, I value stability over democracy. Look at the middle east: you give them democracy at the cost of stability when they choose to elect extremists.And I argued you're wrong because democracies are more stable than authoritarian regimes. It's a false dichotomy.

On the Failed States Index, the Middle Eastern regimes either have warning signs of instability or are close to becoming failed states themselves. They have a façade of stability masked by their authoritarianism. Beating your citizens into submission is not a sustainable system of government.
http://i44.tinypic.com/35mmy4n.jpgThank you for that, Ron.

[siva_chair]

No need for ad hominems.

Like this is at all enforced on here.

[Iskandar]

Everyone ad hominems each other here. It's not an bannable offense but it's not something that should be encouraged either.

[TheDarkHorse]

No need for ad hominems.

in all honesty im not trying to offend you. Im just frustrated with your thickness

And I argued you're wrong because democracies are more stable than authoritarian regimes.
this isn't inherently true and you know it


On the Failed States Index, the Middle Eastern regimes either have warning signs of instability or are close to becoming failed states themselves. They have a façade of stability masked by their authoritarianism. Beating your citizens into submission is not a sustainable system of government.

um why is it that words like 'dictator' automatically mean a brutal tyrant?

You see what I mean? You're not thinking but rather speaking from the presupposition that all 'unfree' states are run by evil, brutal leaders. If you don't look past your own indoctrination you won't see this.

[Iskandar]

in all honesty im not trying to offend you. Im just frustrated with your thicknessI'm frustrated with your anti-democratic attitudes. But I don't insult you.
this isn't inherently true and you know itIt's true as a general trend.
um why is it that words like 'dictator' automatically mean a brutal tyrant?Maybe because dictators are almost always brutal tyrants.
You see what I mean? You're not thinking but rather speaking from the presupposition that all 'unfree' states are run by evil, brutal leaders. If you don't look past your own indoctrination you won't see this.I'm indoctrinated for thinking that unfree states tend to mistreat their people? Maybe you should take a look at what's going on in North Korea, China, Burma, Sudan and Chad, then get back to me. This persistent myth of the benevolent dictator has been played up so much but it's bullshit. Authoritarian regimes have no reason to be benevolent because they are not answerable to their people.

[siva_chair]

I'm frustrated with your anti-democratic attitudes. But I don't insult you.

Anti-democratic attitudes are not wrong in of themselves, though. You seem to be asserting that to be the case, which I think is what Mr. Horse is talking about.

It's true as a general trend.

It is also true as a general trend that blacks commit more crime than whites. Are you suggesting because this is so it is an inherent feature of blacks?

Maybe because dictators are almost always brutal tyrants.

So are collective mobs that infringe on the rights of the individual.

I'm indoctrinated for thinking that unfree states tend to mistreat their people? Maybe you should take a look at what's going on in North Korea, China, Burma, Sudan and Chad, then get back to me. This persistent myth of the benevolent dictator has been played up so much but it's bullshit. Authoritarian regimes have no reason to be benevolent because they are not answerable to their people.

No you are indoctrinated in your rather arbitrary and unsubstantiated biased concept of what constitutes "free" tbh.

I could just as easily say that this persistent myth that democracy = good and just has been played up but it's just bullshit.

[Iskandar]

Anti-democratic attitudes are not wrong in of themselves, though. You seem to be asserting that to be the case, which I think is what Mr. Horse is talking about.No but they do bother me.
It is also true as a general trend that blacks commit more crime than whites. Are you suggesting because this is so it is an inherent feature of blacks?I am suggesting it is an inherent feature of authoritarian regimes because they are not in any way accountable to their people.
So are collective mobs that infringe on the rights of the individual.
Democracy isn't mob rule. It's limited government.
No you are indoctrinated in your rather arbitrary and unsubstantiated biased concept of what constitutes "free" tbh.Freedom is always a biased concept.

[siva_chair]

No but they do bother me.

So what?

I am suggesting it is an inherent feature of authoritarian regimes because they are not in any way accountable to their people.

That isn't what this line of reasoning was about. It was about the supposed inherent stability of democracy.

Democracy isn't mob rule. It's limited government.

Actually no it is nothing but glorified mob rule. If anything, democracy has expanded the role of government since it's inception, anyway, so to call it "limited government" is completely dishonest.

Freedom is always a biased concept.

No, it isn't. It is based on a universal ethic.

[Iskandar]

That isn't what this line of reasoning was about. It was about the supposed inherent stability of democracy.If that's the case then my point is that democracy is not necessarily stable but it is generally more stable than authoritarianism.
Actually no it is nothing but glorified mob rule. If anything, democracy has expanded the role of government since it's inception, anyway, so to call it "limited government" is completely dishonest.Don't confuse limited government with small government. Constitutions are not intended to limit what governments can do but rather what they can't do.
No, it isn't. It is based on a universal ethic.Interesting that there are so many different interpretations of what that ethic might be.

[siva_chair]

If that's the case then my point is that democracy is not necessarily stable but it is generally more stable than authoritarianism.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Don't confuse limited government with small government. Constitutions are not intended to limit what governments can do but rather what they can't do.

Rest assured I am not.

Interesting that there are so many different interpretations of what that ethic might be.

Interesting that most of them aren't actually universal and actually wrong.

[Iskandar]

Correlation does not imply causation.I'm arguing that it is causation. Democracies allow outlets for their citizens' dissatisfactions by protecting freedom of expression, permitting activism and holding regular elections. These institutions do not exist in dictatorships, which censor expression, suppress dissent and does not tolerate opposition. With no legal means to change their government, the only option is open rebellion.
Interesting that most of them aren't actually universal and actually wrong.Other people think you are wrong, too, and it's always good to keep this in mind.

[siva_chair]

I'm arguing that it is causation. Democracies allow outlets for their citizens' dissatisfactions by protecting freedom of expression, permitting activism and holding regular elections. These institutions do not exist in dictatorships, which censor expression, suppress dissent and does not tolerate opposition. With no legal means to change their government, the only option is open rebellion.

Pervez Musharraf allowed freedom of expression as well as held elections (which really mean nothing in of themselves). He was a dictator.

There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power). Democracy still involves people ruling other people and is merely the pretext for authorizing the process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled because outright slavery has been discredited.

Other people think you are wrong, too, and it's always good to keep this in mind.

And they have yet to refute total self-ownership as a universal ethic. It is always good to keep this in mind.

[Iskandar]

Pervez Musharraf allowed freedom of expression as well as held elections (which really mean nothing in of themselves). He was a dictator.Holding fraudulent elections doesn't count.
There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power). Democracy still involves people ruling other people and is merely the pretext for authorizing the process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled because outright slavery has been discredited.
Actually it isn't a monopoly of power because you can change the government.

[siva_chair]

Holding fraudulent elections doesn't count.

You never specified. Plus, he allowed "freedom of expression," which you said wasn't present under a dictatorship.

Actually it isn't a monopoly of power because you can change the government.

Actually it is a territorial monopoly of power. The rulers still rule the ruled. I cannot secede from being ruled by them or being governed by them.

[Iskandar]

You never specified. Plus, he allowed "freedom of expression," which you said wasn't present under a dictatorship.I would have thought it was a given that elections in a democracy were free and fair, because otherwise it isn't a democracy. Pervez did indeed allow some freedom of expression, though not any serious challenges to his power. He is a good example of an authoritarian statesman. A state which allows virtually zero freedom of expression is more accurately described as totalitarian.
Actually it is a territorial monopoly of power. The rulers still rule the ruled. I cannot secede from being ruled by them or being governed by them.You can leave. Or live in a cabin in the woods.

[siva_chair]

I would have thought it was a given that elections in a democracy were free and fair, because otherwise it isn't a democracy. Pervez did indeed allow some freedom of expression, though not any serious challenges to his power. He is a good example of an authoritarian statesman. A state which allows virtually zero freedom of expression is more accurately described as totalitarian.

And you are making a good example of obfuscation.

Pervez completely fits the description of a dictator, and thus your original assertion of dictators is incorrect.

You can leave.

That is why it is a territorial monopoly. I have to physically leave to "secede."

Also, this begs the question of just ownership.

Or live in a cabin in the woods.

And still have to pay property taxes and the like so I haven't really seceded from the government. It still claims a territorial monopoly on whatever land I inhabit.

Also still begging the question of just ownership.

[Iskandar]

That is why it is a territorial monopoly. I have to physically leave to "secede."

And still have to pay property taxes and the like so I haven't really seceded from the government. It still claims a territorial monopoly on whatever land I inhabit.Don't pay your taxes then.

[siva_chair]

Don't pay your taxes then.

And they will come and use violence against me. This does not follow that I am free or anything like that, nor does it follow that a democratic state is legitimate or just.

[Iskandar]

That's because you have a contract with the government and by seceding you are breaking it. They're merely enforcing the contract.

[Light Fantastic]

That's because you have a contract with the government and by seceding you are breaking it.wait what

[mph4ever]

Well, the government is barely functioning and the country is in a state of civil war, so yeah.



oh so its a reality map rather than an american government sponsored map huh


You can leave. Or live in a cabin in the woods.

strange the way obviously bright people end up making this recommendation to siva from time to time. its where the logic forces you

[Light Fantastic]

iskandar isnt bright hes worse than most posters in this forum

socialist communities are tolerated within libertarian entities, but libertarian communities are not tolerated within socialist ones

he has no position to argue really

yet he continues

[Iskandar]

oh so its a reality map rather than an american government sponsored map huhWhen you've living in a state of endless war with no stability you are not free.

[siva_chair]

That's because you have a contract with the government and by seceding you are breaking it. They're merely enforcing the contract.

No, I have no contract with the government. What is this contract and where does it stem from?

Once again, begging the question of legitimacy.

[Iskandar]

No, I have no contract with the government. What is this contract and where does it stem from?Tacit consent. A contract doesn't have to be written to be a contract.

[siva_chair]

Tacit consent. A contract doesn't have to be written to be a contract.

But it does have to be voluntary. This "social contract" is NOT voluntary, and you are still begging the question of legitimacy.

Also, a tacit contract? That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract? What a bunch of horseshit that is.

[Light Fantastic]

oh iskandar likes to play me off as a troll because he cant answer for his views but ok ill elaborate to discredit him

socialist communities are tolerated within libertarian entities, but libertarian communities are not tolerated within socialist ones

if his ideal society can exist within a libertarian state, as its own community, it can have taxes and social programs and whatever he likes and he is free to live there with all the people who share his views

how then can he argue against a libertarian state, if this situation only affords the people in his socialist community one more right: the right to leave

did he not just say he supported this right?

as you can see his views are conflicting i think hes a very confused young man

[Reaganista]

democracy isnt freedom ****in prop 8 and **** real freedom would be if the 'liberal elite' were put in charge of everything

also

contracts are pretty filmsy there's all sorts of ways to get out i know this cuz i got an A in contracts **** yeah
the obligation a person owes to society is irrevocable under any circumstances it's way stronger than a contract

[Iskandar]

But it does have to be voluntary. This "social contract" is NOT voluntary, and you are still begging the question of legitimacy.

Also, a tacit contract? That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract? What a bunch of horseshit that is.It is voluntary. By not rebelling against the state you are consenting to be governed by them. That's what the monopoly on the legitimate use of force means.

Why does a contract have to be written? Walk out of a restaurant without paying and try to argue you had no contract with them.

[mph4ever]

When you've living in a state of endless war with no stability you are not free.

do you think you are free if you are living a state that is constantly at war

But it does have to be voluntary. This "social contract" is NOT voluntary, and you are still begging the question of legitimacy.

And I did not consent.

the fact that you have benefitted from the state infrastrutuce, paid taxes, consumed subsidised food etc means that you have a contract. your acceptance of these benefits from birth sets a precedent and precedence even without written contract demonstrates your willing compliance. it can hold up as a contract in most courts.

the only thing you can do is get some mad bitch that wants to live with you in total isolation, make sure you can be totally self sufficient in a cabin on land in a place where there is no land tax, have kids and never let them interact with anything outide the boundaries of your little world and they will not have a contract.

i think you will find that jesus christ allin, GG, started out like this so don't make the mistake of ever letting your kids learn guitar or sing. just keep them locked up the basement and they will be fine

[Reaganista]

it's way more fundamental than eating subsidized food ffs
he can think
he knows words
there's no going back from that

[Iskandar]

do you think you are free if you are living a state that is constantly at warNo.
the fact that you have benefitted from the state infrastrutuce, paid taxes, consumed subsidised food etc means that you have a contract. your acceptance of these benefits from birth sets a precedent and precedence even without written contract demonstrates your willing compliance. it can hold up as a contract in most courts.Well said.

[siva_chair]

It is voluntary. By not rebelling against the state you are consenting to be governed by them.

False.

That is like saying that by allowing a thief to steal your money you are consenting to be robbed by them. What absurdity.

That's what the monopoly on the legitimate use of force means.

So how many times are you going to beg the question again?

Why does a contract have to be written? Walk out of a restaurant without paying and try to argue you had no contract with them.

It doesn't have to be written, but it has to be voluntary.

Also, no one else can force me to comply with it. People cannot make contracts on behalf of other people without their freely given consent.

[Reaganista]

it wasnt well said at all it totally misses the point

and you can be free and live in a state that's constantly at war as long as the wars are all on the other side of the world

[Iskandar]

That is like saying that by allowing a thief to steal your money you are consenting to be robbed by them.Actually, in that case you would be.

[Reaganista]

i can see why he chooses to argue against u and not ppl with decent points

[siva_chair]

the fact that you have benefitted from the state infrastrutuce, paid taxes, consumed subsidised food etc means that you have a contract.

False.

[siva_chair]

Actually, in that case you would be.

Bullshit. So if I come up to you and put a gun to your head and demand you give me your money, and you do so to avoid having violence committed against you, you have consented to being robbed?

[Reaganista]

^ he right
the contract angle is stupid

it's like ur saying you drove on our roads, now you have to go kill and die for us in asia it's nuts
an ownership rationale fits a lot better

[mph4ever]

False.

maybe not in your eyes, or mine for that matter. but in the eyes of the state. see thats the unforetunate thing about all this. you can say what you like on here but outside of these little discussions there is a reality and it is seriously stacked in their favour.

take your case to the highest court in the land and they will still side with the state. thats what they are there to do afterall.

[siva_chair]

Self-ownership, that is.

[siva_chair]

maybe not in your eyes, or mine for that matter. but in the eyes of the state. see thats the unforetunate thing about all this. you can say what you like on here but outside of these little discussions there is a reality and it is seriously stacked in their favour.

take your case to the highest court in the land and they will still side with the state. thats what they are there to do afterall.

And appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

[Reaganista]

no you didnt make yourself there's no reason you should own yourself

[siva_chair]

no you didnt make yourself there's no reason you should own yourself

Are you suggesting that you have to make something to legitimately own it?

Also, the government didn't make me either. Neither did you, any of congress, Joe down the street, etc.

I'd love to hear your case against self-ownership that doesn't contradict itself.

[Reaganista]

im suggesting that when something is created the entity who made it owns it

[mph4ever]

And appeals to authority are logical fallacies.


siva, i'm not appealing to authority. fundamentally i am against all authority. i'm not supporting their case. i'm just pointing out the way it is. it doesn't matter what you think about certain things, you can say what you like, it doesn't change anything in the corridors of power.

you have a contract, you can't change that, there may be better alternatives but society and freedoms granted have evolved way too fast for the archaic constitutions and laws and the state legislators are too old and slow to react. thats just the way it is.

lets start with an idea. first off, lets ban anyone over the age of forty from public office. lets euthanise political careers

[siva_chair]

im suggesting that when something is created the entity who made it owns it

Yeah and it still does not follow that I do not own myself.

[siva_chair]

siva, i'm not appealing to authority. fundamentally i am against all authority. i'm not supporting their case. i'm just pointing out the way it is. it doesn't matter what you think about certain things, you can say what you like, it doesn't change anything in the corridors of power.

Thats nice but this discussion was one over legitimacy, not over what they are capable of actually doing.

you have a contract, you can't change that, there may be better alternatives but society and freedoms granted have evolved way too fast for the archaic constitutions and laws and the state legislators are too old and slow to react. thats just the way it is.

Except it isn't a contract. To say that it is is to severly obfuscate what a contract is.

lets start with an idea. first off, lets ban anyone over the age of forty from public office. lets euthanise political careers

Why not just abolish public office entirely?

[Reaganista]

Yeah and it still does not follow that I do not own myself.

you didnt create urself

[siva_chair]

you didnt create urself

And the state did?

[Reaganista]

no society did

[mph4ever]

Thats nice but this discussion was one over legitimacy, not over what they are capable of actually doing.




Except it isn't a contract. To say that it is is to severly obfuscate what a contract is.



Why not just abolish public office entirely?

go live in a cabin

[siva_chair]

go live in a cabin

No.

no society did

Who is society and where does it derive it's rights?

Society does not have a will, cannot reason, make decisions, and cannot act purposefully. It does not own anything.

Arguing against self-ownership is inherently contradictory.

[Reaganista]

Society does not have a will, cannot reason, make decisions, and cannot act purposefully. It does not own anything.
wat
neither can nike, the vatican, the us government, an estate of a dead guy, the bank of china or a guy in a coma they all own ****

[siva_chair]

wat
neither can nike, the vatican, the us government, an estate of a dead guy, the bank of china or a guy in a coma they all own ****

Society does not have rights. Please demonstrate how "society" has rights.

Arguing against self-ownership is inherently contradictory.

[Reaganista]

cool use of quotes are you unfamiliar with the term
just wikipedia it if u never heard of it before

try wiking crimes against humanity and international law too

[siva_chair]

cool use of quotes are you unfamiliar with the term
just wikipedia it if u never heard of it before

try wiking crimes against humanity and international law too

Sorry but I want to hear it from you. You haven't demonstrated how society is an entity with rights.

You are still contradicting yourself by arguing against self-ownership.

[Reaganista]

Sorry but I want to hear it from you. You haven't demonstrated how society is an entity with rights.
crimes against humanity and international law too

[hismajestythepope]

Who is society and where does it derive it's rights?
Well who could be used singular, or to reference multiple people... maybe even entire societies, and I'd think societies derive their rights from ongoing debates stemming back to the dawn of man...

Society does not have a will,
Humankind definitely has a will. Did not the western powers band together to see to it that their will that Europe should not fall under the shadow of Nazism during World War II would succeed?

cannot reason, make decisions,
Ahh, that's why we debate with one another on how best to rule our environment...

and cannot act purposefully.
Is that so? is this why charities are just myths?

It does not own anything.
Thats why places like YMCA's are under communal ownership then, right?

Arguing against self-ownership is inherently contradictory.
No it's not, however arguing against the existence of communal ownership is, as it does in fact exist in many cases.

[siva_chair]

crimes against humanity and international law too

So you have nothing. I see.

Maybe you should, you know, actually present something.

Well who could be used singular, or to reference multiple people... maybe even entire societies, and I'd think societies derive their rights from ongoing debates stemming back to the dawn of man...

Yes, society is simply a collection of individuals. It is not a singular entity, it is a convenience of language.

humankind definitely has a will

No, individual humans have a will. Humankind does not possess a will.


ahh, that's why we debate with one another to rule our environment...

So because supposedly "society" has rights, it delegates the right to rule others? This does not follow.

is that so? is this why charities are just myths?

This has nothing to do with charities wtf are you talking about?

oh thats why places like YMCA's are under communal ownership then, right?

The YMCA is owned by groups of individuals.

no it's not,

Yes it is.

however arguing about communal ownership is, because it does in fact exist in many cases.

No even said communal ownership doesn't exist per se. It does exist as a group of individuals owning something.

[Reaganista]

So you have nothing. I see.

Maybe you should, you know, actually present something.

ur eyesight is failing

[mph4ever]

No.


ok then don't. anyway, i for one would miss you. your illogical fantasies are excellent

[siva_chair]

ur eyesight is failing

Failing to see where you have substantiated anything. But then again that doesn't really result from my eyesight itself failing, but from you failing to actually present anything substantial to the argument.

[siva_chair]

ok then don't. anyway, i for one would miss you. your illogical fantasies are excellent

You mean logical.

[hismajestythepope]

Yes, society is simply a collection of individuals. It is not a singular entity, it is a convenience of language.
awesome argument dude, that's totally relevent.

No, individual humans have a will. Humankind does not possess a will.
so collective will and common sentiment are myths?

So because supposedly "society" has rights, it delegates the right to rule others? This does not follow.
well people generally choose leaders themselves, unless say, they're corrupt and seize power, so yeah, rulership is a right as it goes hand in hand with protection, as governments generally control militaries...

This has nothing to do with charities wtf are you talking about?
that point

your head

The YMCA is owned by groups of individuals.
this would be refute your claim that the only ownership is individual then, wouldn't it?

No even said communal ownership doesn't exist per se. It does exist as a group of individuals owning something.
nobody said it outright, but that's what you were implying. maybe you should work on getting your points across more clearly, if that's not what you were saying, because it really came off as such.

[mph4ever]

You mean logical.

eh, no

[Iskandar]

Fantasies either way.

[hismajestythepope]

EXPLAIN THIS

oh moderatar

[Iskandar]

EXPLAIN THIS

oh moderatarExplain what O Majesty? I will be glad to answer whatever questions you have, I'm just a little confused.

[hismajestythepope]

What do you mean by fantasies? are you arguing against both myself and siva?

I generally get defensive when fantasies are mentioned because according to a few people (Iscariot, guitrguy) I live in a fantasy world, based off of the political events that I think actually matter.

[mph4ever]

What do you mean by fantasies? are you arguing against both myself and siva?

I generally get defensive when fantasies are mentioned because according to a few people (Iscariot, guitrguy) I live in a fantasy world, based off of the political events that I think actually matter.

in context logical or illogical fantasies i reckon

[hismajestythepope]

Logical fantasies?

[mph4ever]

Logical fantasies?

illogical fantasies, its a play on words, stop getting your panties in a bunch

[hismajestythepope]

no im curious what you mean by that, lol.

[Iskandar]

What do you mean by fantasies? are you arguing against both myself and siva?

I generally get defensive when fantasies are mentioned because according to a few people (Iscariot, guitrguy) I live in a fantasy world, based off of the political events that I think actually matter.No, I didn't mean that in reference to what you said.

[hismajestythepope]

OKAY THEN CARRY ON

thank you for your time, and sorry for getting defensive, i am extremely insecure :<

[siva_chair]

awesome argument dude, that's totally relevent.

I know, it is.

so collective will and common sentiment are myths?

"Collective will" is, sure (and common sentiment is simply sentiment shared by many people, which has nothing to do with anything here). There is no such thing as the will of "society" because society is not an entity with a singular will.

well people generally choose leaders themselves, unless say, they're corrupt and seize power, so yeah, rulership is a right as it goes hand in hand with protection, as governments generally control militaries...

Ok how does that justify someone ruling over everyone. Sorry, but you (or some majority) doesn't get to delegate that right to someone (or some party).


that point

your head

This is nonsensical.


this would be refute your claim that the only ownership is individual then, wouldn't it?

No, because my claim was that only individuals can own themselves. I said nothing about joint ownership of property.

nobody said it outright, but that's what you were implying. maybe you should work on getting your points across more clearly, if that's not what you were saying, because it really came off as such.

I have a better idea: learn to read and not fail at comprehension. I implied nothing of communal ownership of property, only communal ownership of self. To argue against self-ownership is inherently contradictory.

Fantasies either way.

In that case your egalitarianism is a fantasy, then.

Only it is an illogical one, whereas at least mine is logical.

[mph4ever]

In that case your egalitarianism is a fantasy, then.

Only it is an illogical one, whereas at least mine is logical.

progress or what? finally admitting debating fantasies

[siva_chair]

progress or what? finally admitting debating fantasies

Well I reject that it is actually a fantasy, but if we are going to just frame it as such I'm going to point out everyone else's so-called fantasies.

[mph4ever]

Well I reject that it is actually a fantasy, but if we are going to just frame it as such I'm going to point out everyone else's so-called fantasies.


i thought that might be a stretch too far but i still think we achieved something today. same time next week?

[hismajestythepope]

Ten paragraphs of proof that I have no clue what I'm talking about.
nice.

[siva_chair]

nice.

Your demonstration of your assertion is logically flawless. :rolleyes:

Are you that mentally inept that you have to resort to such crap? To think this forum actually used to have decent level of intellectual content.....

[hismajestythepope]

This forum has always been pretty damn retarded, it's pretty lol that you take it so seriously though.

Maybe I'm pointing out that every point you make is so laughably inaccurate that I cry?

Seriously, if you're gonna play the devil's advocate, at least make sure it's not borderline-comedic.

[siva_chair]

This forum has always been pretty damn retarded, it's pretty lol that you take it so seriously though.

It used to have much more intellectual content than it does now.

Maybe I'm pointing out that every point you make is so laughably inaccurate that I cry?

Maybe you should actually demonstrate how they are inaccurate instead of just looking like an idiot that is incapable of utilizing logic. That might help your case.

Seriously, if you're gonna play the devil's advocate, at least make sure it's not borderline-comedic.

Do you even know what playing devil's advocate means?

[hismajestythepope]

It used to have much more intellectual content than it does now.



Maybe you should actually demonstrate how they are inaccurate instead of just looking like an idiot that is incapable of utilizing logic. That might help your case.


Do you even know what playing devil's advocate means?
you sure showed me! you are like so much smarter than anyone!

[siva_chair]

you sure showed me! you are like so much smarter than anyone!

Because this response certainly substantiated everything you have claimed.....

[hismajestythepope]

because i seriously didnt make you look like an idiot hours ago...

[siva_chair]

because i seriously didnt make you look like an idiot hours ago...

You are right, you seriously didn't. You just made a bunch of assertions and failed to defend them with anything substantial. Good job.

[hismajestythepope]

THERES NO SUCH THING AS COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP

SOCIETY AS A WHOLE HAS NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING POSITIVE

stfu moron, if you seriously think asserting that bullshit in poorly constructed paragraphs is an intellectual debate, you have some serious serious issues.

[siva_chair]

THERES NO SUCH THING AS COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP

Oh wow you should point out where I said that. If you knew how to read I have said there is no such thing as communal ownership of persons. If you weren't so busy spouting unsubstantiated and illogical assertions you might have caught that.

SOCIETY AS A WHOLE HAS NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING POSITIVE

"Society" is not an entity actor that can act purposefully to accomplish anything. Only individuals are actors.

stfu moron, if you seriously think asserting that bullpoop in poorly constructed paragraphs is an intellectual debate, you have some serious serious issues.

If you seriously think crying and whining because you can't comprehend things or present valid counter-arguments that don't include logical fallacies constitutes you not looking foolish, you have some serious serious issues.

[hismajestythepope]

Society can metaphorically be referred to as an entity, especially when you think of how people band together towards common goals.

I'm not whining, you're just asserting utter retard-ery.

[hismajestythepope]

A SOCIETY CAN'T LIKE OWN SOMETHING

which is why a lot of tribes have quibbles with modern states over their ancestral lands....

[siva_chair]

Society can metaphorically be referred to as an entity, especially when you think of how people band together towards common goals.

Especially when that is just individuals (who own themselves) working together toward common goals. You have yet to show how society is an entity with a singular will, and how it follows that "society" can own persons.

I'm not whining, you're just asserting utter retard-ery.

Yes, you most certainly are whining instead of actually substantiating anything. You seem to fall back on silly ad hominem attacks because you are insecure about your own argument.

[siva_chair]

A SOCIETY CAN'T LIKE OWN SOMETHING

which is why a lot of tribes have quibbles with modern states over their ancestral lands....

Putting things in caps just highlights you being retarded even more. Just so you know.

[hismajestythepope]

Yeah dude, because I mockingly posted the points you made in all caps, you're no longer a retard for being the one that was actually making those points.

[siva_chair]

Good thing your sad attempts at mockery emphatically miss the point.

[hismajestythepope]

Nice use of emphatic, unfortunately, it still doesn't make it any less hilarious that you're trying to say that societies aren't a force run by common goals, and that communal ownership is non-existent (which you ended up contradicting).

:lol:

[siva_chair]

Nice use of emphatic, unfortunately, it still doesn't make it any less hilarious that you're trying to say that societies aren't a force run by common goals, and that communal ownership is non-existent (which you ended up contradicting).

:lol:

Good thing I never said communal ownership (or more accurately joint ownership) is non-existent.

This is quite the nice big strawman you have created here.

[hismajestythepope]

Denying that you said something doesn't all of the sudden mean that I'm making strawman arguments.

Also, I heard you're taking English 101.

[siva_chair]

Denying that you said something doesn't all of the sudden mean that I'm making strawman arguments.

Actually it does. You are arguing against something I never claimed, thus a strawman.

Also, I heard you're taking English 101.

Also, I heard that you are wrong. This is quite hilarious coming from someone who can't spell "oppose" correctly...

[1338 h4x0r]

Denying that you said something doesn't all of the sudden mean that I'm making strawman arguments.

Also, I heard you're taking English 101.

siva_chair is only a high school graduate

[hismajestythepope]

no wonder he thinks that incorrectly naming literary devices will suddenly give his arguments steam.

Actually it does. You are arguing against something I never claimed, thus a strawman.
must i ****ing quote you to shut you the **** up?

This is quite hilarious coming from someone who can't spell "oppose" correctly...
wow, we're really running out of ideas here, eh? pointing out typose.

[siva_chair]

siva_chair is only a high school graduate

siva_chair is currently working on his second college degree.

Chris is busy creating posts full of fail.

no wonder he thinks that incorrectly naming literary devices will suddenly give his arguments steam.

So what is your excuse exactly for employing an army of logical fallacies and passing them off as arguments exactly? The only steam that seems to come from your arguments is from the pile of **** that they are.

must i ****ing quote you to shut you the **** up?

It would be a start.

wow, we're really running out of ideas here, eh? pointing out typose.

Idk you are the one that felt compelled to mention something about English.

[hismajestythepope]

siva_chair is currently working on his second college degree.
bravo, so proud.
Chris is busy creating posts full of fail.

http://www.225.ca/ivan/nov03/crybaby.jpg


So what is your excuse exactly for employing an army of logical fallacies and passing them off as arguments exactly?
directly refuting points you make =/= arguing with fallacies.

The only steam that seems to come from your arguments is from the pile of **** that they are.
nice dude, you're all of the sudden right that societal ownership doesn't exist, because using the term communal ownership, which means the same thing, is a completely different concept.

Who is society and where does it derive it's rights?

Society does not have a will, cannot reason, make decisions, and cannot act purposefully. It does not own anything.

Arguing against self-ownership is inherently contradictory.

I made very reasonable arguments to everything here, and your only response you could come up with was, "I didn't say communal ownership." and "stop using strawman arguments."

Sorry, again, you said "Societal ownership," not "communal ownership."


And I brought up you misusing literary terms, because well, you're misusing them and I'm an English major.

[siva_chair]

bravo, so proud.

js

http://www.225.ca/ivan/nov03/crybaby.jpg

You shouldn't post pictures of yourself on a forum full of strangers.

directly refuting points you make =/= arguing with fallacies.

Except you didn't "directly refute" my points at all.

nice dude, you're all of the sudden right that societal ownership doesn't exist, because using the term communal ownership, which means the same thing, is a completely different concept.

Oh wow you continue to ignore the context in which I said that in. Good job.

I made very reasonable arguments to everything here, and your only response you could come up with was, "I didn't say communal ownership." and "stop using strawman arguments."

Actually I specifically said communal ownership of self. Nice fail once again.

Sorry, again, you said "Societal ownership," not "communal ownership."

Ok where did I say that? Where did I say people could not jointly own property?

And I brought up you misusing literary terms, because well, you're misusing them and I'm an English major.

That is pretty funny considering you can't spell "oppose" correctly, don't understand context, and didn't even bother to demonstrate how I have misused literary terms. Good fail though.

BTW fyi English being your native tongue /= you being an English major.

[TheDarkHorse]

I'm frustrated with your anti-democratic attitudes. But I don't insult you.
lol again you say this as if 'anti-democratic' is bad you love to argue from silly presuppositions

It's true as a general trend.
what an absurd, unproven statement.

Maybe because dictators are almost always brutal tyrants.
if all the female rulers you saw had a stick up their side, would you incorporate that into the definition?

its a silly inductive leap and you know it..or you might not, actually.

I'm indoctrinated for thinking that unfree states tend to mistreat their people?
is that the definition of an 'unfree' state? You see, you don't get it

Maybe you should take a look at what's going on in North Korea

nothing

, China,
nothing

To see democracy without stability, take a look at:
Iraq
the Palestinian people
Iran

This persistent myth of the benevolent dictator has been played up so much but it's bullshit. Authoritarian regimes have no reason to be benevolent because they are not answerable to their people.
Now Let me ask you something: why are you defending democracy in the case when a moderate dictator is replaced by an extremist leader?

Again, I don't expect you to look at this critically. All you can do is look from your Western perspective while you fail to realize there's a whole other world that doesn't think like the West does.

[Chu]

THERES NO SUCH THING AS COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP

SOCIETY AS A WHOLE HAS NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING POSITIVE
Please, go read about GNU, Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Admittedly, it will have very little relation to you, but it is the single contradiction your argument needs to show it as wrong.

[siva_chair]

Please, go read about GNU, Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Admittedly, it will have very little relation to you, but it is the single contradiction your argument needs to show it as wrong.

To show my argument as being wrong?

[Chu]

Not to you, it was to Mappy.

It is an example of communal ownership, and I think the extent of it's success has even surprised it's originator.

[hismajestythepope]

okay, cool? you realize you and i are both on the same side and are arguing against siva?

[siva_chair]

Not to you, it was to Mappy.

It is an example of communal ownership, and I think the extent of it's success has even surprised it's originator.

Right but Mappy's position has been that I said communal ownership doesn't exist. What he continually fails to acknowledge is that I said that in reference to communal ownership of persons, i.e. that a person has self-ownership.

[Chu]

Actually, if you have done any formal study of logic, you would know, you can "prove" a tautology as many times as you want, but showing one contradiction is enough to show fallacy.

[hismajestythepope]

however, what he said still does nothing to refute what i said, he's just making an irrelevant point because he doesn't actually have something to refute what i've said.
To show my argument as being wrong?

You did say communal ownership doesn't exist, so I'd assume so bright guy.

[mph4ever]

Right but Mappy's position has been that I said communal ownership doesn't exist. What he continually fails to acknowledge is that I said that in reference to communal ownership of persons, i.e. that a person has self-ownership.

who owns you when you are born? those who created you? or who?

[hismajestythepope]

Right but Mappy's position has been that I said communal ownership doesn't exist. What he continually fails to acknowledge is that I said that in reference to communal ownership of persons, i.e. that a person has self-ownership.
you never made that point until just now. good try dude.

as i recall, i argued that communal ownership does exist, and provided examples... somehow back when that initial point was made, you never mentioned this... and it was hours ago, crazy.

maybe you should learn to argue before you try arguing.

[siva_chair]

You did say communal ownership doesn't exist, so I'd assume so bright guy.

I said communal ownership of persons doesn't exist. You can keep trying to dance around this if you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

[siva_chair]

you never made that point until just now. good try dude.

Actually I made that several pages ago. Go ahead, go look.

[hismajestythepope]

Dude, I just went back and quoted you. There was still nothing about that on that page.

Stop. Failing. At. Arguing.

[1338 h4x0r]

Communal ownership of siva_chair's *** exists

[hismajestythepope]

I said communal ownership of persons doesn't exist. You can keep trying to dance around this if you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
no, you said "societal ownership does not exist"

nothing else. that's the exact quote.

[Reaganista]

Failing to see where you have substantiated anything
ok im not gonna play these stupid games i dont get wat u get out of it tbh
either respond to wat i said or dont

[siva_chair]

who owns you when you are born? those who created you? or who?

A newborn child is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. Parents ownership roles are not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. Basically, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.

[hismajestythepope]

"Parents are ownership roles are not absolute but of a "trustee" or a guardianship kind."

Awesome sentence dude.

[Chu]

If you remove the second "are", I think you get the jist of it.

Not to be pedantic or anything...

[hismajestythepope]

What? The second "are" makes sense, the first one doesn't.

Parents aren't ownership roles, they have ownership roles.

Actually no, that usage of ownership is all in all degrading to a the concept of a person.

[Chu]

"Parents are ownership roles, not absolute but of a "trustee" or a guardianship kind."
idk, makes sense to me.

[siva_chair]

ok im not gonna play these stupid games i dont get wat u get out of it tbh
either respond to wat i said or dont

Either present a substantial argument for me to actually respond to or stop making retarded claims.

no, you said "societal ownership does not exist"

nothing else. that's the exact quote.

And you are still ignoring context.

No, because my claim was that only individuals can own themselves. I said nothing about joint ownership of property.

That is an exact quote.

[hismajestythepope]

I think he meant, "A parent's role is not that of the ownership of their children as an asset, but that of a mentor and guardian, to cultivate their seed."

Regardless, I don't own myself, I just am myself, what are you trying to point out?

[siva_chair]

I meant what I fixed it as.

[Chu]

Sounds about right, it's up to interpretation.

But it really irks me when people point out some stupid mistake someone has made, when regardless you can still make out the facts of the argument.

[Reaganista]

siva i c youve chosen the second option that's ok u dont have to argue wit ppl who r smarter than u if u dont want 2 i cant force u

[hismajestythepope]

I meant what I fixed it as.

"but of a trustee" is missing the word "that"

its "that of a trustee"

and a parent has no ownership whatsoever of their children, in any way, shape, or form.

human life is not a commodity.

[TheDarkHorse]

Battle of Trolls ITT

[1338 h4x0r]

vkplkl cgvf[kpl bv[;pl[;kpl' bv[;pl' b[;pl' b[kpl' b b bi[-0po bvi[-0po9 bvi[-0po bi[-0=po bv-09i0upo9 cv gvf[-po b[-0po b[-0po b[-0po[po b[po v09-09 vi[po cvi[-0po

[TheDarkHorse]

vkplkl cgvf[kpl bv[;pl[;kpl' bv[;pl' b[;pl' b[kpl' b b bi[-0po bvi[-0po9 bvi[-0po bi[-0=po bv-09i0upo9 cv gvf[-po b[-0po b[-0po b[-0po[po b[po v09-09 vi[po cvi[-0po

hey remember that post you tried to make some formula and smokey was like "dude stop doing that"

[siva_chair]

siva i c youve chosen the second option that's ok u dont have to argue wit ppl who r smarter than u if u dont want 2 i cant force u

When you present an actual argument I'll argue it.

"but of a trustee" is missing the word "that"

its "that of a trustee"

Parents ownership roles are not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind.

It is missing no words.

and a parent has no ownership whatsoever of their children, in any way, shape, or form.

human life is not a commodity.

But apparently society can own yours, according to your argument.

Anyway, no one said it was a commodity. But it is a property.

[1338 h4x0r]

ITT: siva_chair's penis is tiny

hey remember that post you tried to make some formula and smokey was like "dude stop doing that"

b nvhcv g -09 n098 bv-09 b-09 -09 -0o -0 -09 -9 9 i09h798 v8 cv0u8 vj[0u8 cv bni09u98 ij bijo xcvipo 09i09 popo po [po i uy iuy trtr tr tr

[hismajestythepope]

When you present an actual argument I'll argue it.

witholding arguments that go over your head.



Parents ownership roles are not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind.

It is missing no words.
I guess if your grammatical skills are on par with that of an 8th grader, maybe.

I wonder if this post will show how butthurt I am right now...

Anyway, no one said it was a commodity. But it is a property.
WOW. Did you seriously just argue that a commodity is not a property? :lol:

You do realize that when you talk of human life as a, "property," in that manner, we refer to it as a, "commodity," right?

[1338 h4x0r]

By the way, siva_chair has an exceedingly small penis.

[hismajestythepope]

it all makes senes!

[1338 h4x0r]

What impact do you think siva_chair's minuscule prick has on freedom in the world in 2009?

Personally, I believe it has no impact at all. Even a squirrel laughed at it.

[siva_chair]

I guess if your grammatical skills are on par with that of an 8th grader, maybe.

There is nothing wrong with that sentence.


WOW. Did you seriously just argue that a commodity is not a property? :lol:

Did you just equivocate commodity with property?

You do realize that when you talk of human life as a, "property," in that manner, we refer to it as a, "commodity," right?

You realize that you don't seem to understand what a commodity is, right?

[1338 h4x0r]

siva_chair masturbates with tweezers and magnifying glass.

[siva_chair]

Chris your mom just called and told me that there isn't a single day that doesn't go by that she doesn't regret not swallowing the load that begot you. Have a nice day.

[1338 h4x0r]

LOL

You need to be more concise!

Like this:

"siva_chair's penis makes his pubes look huge."

[hismajestythepope]

Chris your mom just called and told me that there isn't a single day that doesn't go by that she doesn't regret not swallowing the load that begot you. Have a nice day.

i heard chris' mother is his role model

[1338 h4x0r]

J.R.R. Tolkien, Theodore Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh and Robin Li are among my role models

Also, this just in: siva_chair's penis is embarrassingly small

[mph4ever]

A newborn child is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. Parents ownership roles are not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. Basically, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.

so parents can make decisions for the child that they deem appropriate in the best interests of the child. in the same way that a guardian or a trustee might. right?

[Light Fantastic]

the obligation a person owes to society is irrevocable under any circumstances it's way stronger than a contractthis isnt really relevant the argument is about obligation to the state as in government not society itself

[1338 h4x0r]

siva_chair's mom and dad should have considered him a girl at birth

[Light Fantastic]

i dont know if anyone has told you but the nine year old jokes arent really funny

[siva_chair]

so parents can make decisions for the child that they deem appropriate in the best interests of the child. in the same way that a guardian or a trustee might. right?

I would think so, though it is certainly in a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against the child's person by mutilating, torturing, murdering, etc. them, as they are not absolute owners.

[1338 h4x0r]

i dont know if anyone has told you but the nine year old jokes arent really funny

They aren't, but they make siva_chair type out butthurt responses, which is my goal.

[Light Fantastic]

so you admit to being a troll i think iskandar should ban you then since he told me that was against the rules

[1338 h4x0r]

The ends justify the means

Also, you are more than welcome to ignore me

[hismajestythepope]

so you admit to being a troll i think iskandar should ban you then since he told me that was against the rules

Iskandar should ban you for causing multiple page debates on whether or not things actually happened as a result of wars.

And you're the one trying to refute historical events. Stop.

[siva_chair]

Lol your awareness skills amaze me.

[Light Fantastic]

i thought multiple page debates where the point of this forum anyway

[1338 h4x0r]

i thought multiple page debates where the point of this forum anyway

Yes, although script d00d attacks on the server are not

[TheDarkHorse]

Yes, although script d00d attacks on the server are not

tell me about it hes one to talk of rules when he copies and pastes scripts

[Iskandar]

lol again you say this as if 'anti-democratic' is bad you love to argue from silly presuppositions

what an absurd, unproven statement.I can name terrible authoritarian states all day. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, Congo, Burma, Laos, Libya. You think people have it better in those places than (a random sampling) Chile, Canada, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Costa Rica. The facts bear it out. Authoritarian states suck.
nothing

nothingUm....

Google "human rights in North Korea," "economy of North Korea." Then "Free Tibet movement," "Human trafficking in China," "persecution of Falun Gong." Then get back to me when you're ready to not be an apologist for some of the worst governments out there.
To see democracy without stability, take a look at:
Iraq
the Palestinian people
IranIraq is in a state of civil war, Palestine is under occupation and Iran is a theocracy. Nice try.
Now Let me ask you something: why are you defending democracy in the case when a moderate dictator is replaced by an extremist leader? Where is that happening right now?
Again, I don't expect you to look at this critically. All you can do is look from your Western perspective while you fail to realize there's a whole other world that doesn't think like the West does.Sorry, human rights are not just a Western value. Tell that to India, Japan, South Korea and South Africa.

[TheDarkHorse]

I can name terrible authoritarian states all day. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, Congo, Burma, Laos, Libya. You think people have it better in those places than (a random sampling) Chile, Canada, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Costa Rica. The facts bear it out. Authoritarian states suck.
The first problem is your definition of 'terrible.' The second is the irrelevance to stability. I don't think you remember the argument though: Stability > Democracy

Zimbabwe-um regardless of rigging (thats a part of African elections) people vote. By your very own argument, the people of Zimbabwe would be better off under the control of Britain once again rather than a 'democratic' nation

Iraq is in a state of civil war
Don't give me that nonsense. Religious tensions have fueled in Iraq for a long time. They were relatively stable under Saddam. Now there's a "democracy" that put to power extreme religious leaders. There is no stability.

Palestine is under occupation
more nonsense.

The Palestinians elected an extremist government and now enjoy the greatest period of instability in the region.
and Iran is a theocracy.

Iran is a mix of popular sovereignty and Islamic Theocracy. This is pathetic when the very forum moderator can't see this.

Where is that happening right now?
I've already shown you and you failed to refute it, so answer the question.

Sorry, human rights are not just a Western value. Tell that to India, Japan, South Korea and South Africa.
so now you want to spin this about human rights

Where are the human rights for Christians in Iraq under democracy?

[Iskandar]

The first problem is your definition of 'terrible.' The second is the irrelevance to stability. I don't think you remember the argument though: Stability > DemocracyI would say massive human rights abuses and zero political representation qualifies as terrible. Idk what your values are.
Zimbabwe-um regardless of rigging (thats a part of African elections) people vote. By your very own argument, the people of Zimbabwe would be better off under the control of Britain once again rather than a 'democratic' nationSorry, you're not a democracy if the guy who has been president since the 1980s rigs the election and claims only God can remove him from office. Nice strawman about the British, though. It's a favourite excuse of Mugabe and his team of apologists.
Iran is a mix of popular sovereignty and Islamic Theocracy. This is pathetic when the very forum moderator can't see this.Voting for preselected candidates who are secondary to an unelected theocrat isn't democracy. Sry.
I've already shown you and you failed to refute it, so answer the question.No, I don't recall. Refresh my memory. Where is it happening?
so now you want to spin this about human rights Well, since dictatorships don't have the greatest record when it comes to them...
Where are the human rights for Christians in Iraq under democracy?Once again Iraq is not a functioning democracy, it's in the midst of a civil war. But to wit, where were the human rights for Christians, Shi'as, Kurds and political opponents during Saddam's reign?

[TheDarkHorse]

I would say massive human rights abuses and zero political representation qualifies as terrible. Idk what your values are.

Good. Save that for another thread and stay on topic

Secondly, stop sticking to the argument that all dictators have to be tyrants that abuse human rights. I know you're going to say "Well thats all I've seen," but again thats nothing short of an inductive leap.

Sorry, you're not a democracy if the guy who has been president since the 1980s rigs the election and claims only God can remove him from office.

The President isn't the only leader.

Nice strawman about the British, though. It's a favourite excuse of Mugabe and his team of apologists.
yeah Mugabee admits hes a bad leader and says the people would be better off without this democratic process in motion.

Seriously how did this one go right over your head?

Voting for preselected candidates
like elites choose candidates in the U.S?

who are secondary to an unelected theocrat
Presidents control the domestic policy, which involves the people. I thought you knew this.


No, I don't recall. Refresh my memory. Where is it happening?
Iraq is a prime example

Well, since dictatorships don't have the greatest record when it comes to them...
You're an idiot.

Once again Iraq is not a functioning democracy,

according to CIA factbook:
Government type:
parliamentary democracy

nice try

it's in the midst of a civil war
again irrelevant, and questionable. I've yet to see anyone report it (except for extreme media outlets) as a "civil war" because those tensions are common. There is no full-blown declaration of war against another outside of what has been said by ancestors of the two groups.

nice try.

Actually it was pretty pathetic who am i kiddin

But to wit, where were the human rights for Christians

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0704487.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11578523/
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=33389

Read without spin

Shi'as
The Shia's were "at war" with Saddam and constantly tried to kill him.

nice try.

Kurds
kurds are not apart of Iraq stop using this pathetic argument

Now please answer the question, or admit your a troll with nothing better to do than protect your fragile argument while hoping your cool new *Moderator* status gives you any credibility.

[hismajestythepope]

just gonna point out that america is a republic, not a democracy

[Iskandar]

Secondly, stop sticking to the argument that all dictators have to be tyrants that abuse human rights. I will when more dictators don't. And they will as long as they are not answerable to their people and cannot be removed from power.
yeah Mugabee admits hes a bad leader and says the people would be better off without this democratic process in motion.What?
like elites choose candidates in the U.S?Try again when there's an unelected body that can turn down candidates because they don't meet the Ayatollah's ideological criteria. Not that it has any bearing on Iran either way.
You're an idiot.Stop the ad hominems. They accomplish nothing.
according to CIA factbook:
Government type:
parliamentary democracyHere's your reading for the day: de jure and de facto. De jure, North Korea is a democratic republic. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that's what it is in practice.
again irrelevant, and questionable. I've yet to see anyone report it (except for extreme media outlets) as a "civil war" because those tensions are common. When there's violence daily between factions representing different segments of the population I think it'd be fair to call it a civil war.
kurds are not apart of Iraq stop using this pathetic argumentMaybe you should Google "Kurds" and try to tell me there are none living in Iraq.

[Der Übermensch]

Sorry, human rights are not just a Western value. Tell that to India, Japan, South Korea and South Africa.

To be fair dropper, those all are western constructs... India and SA's governments were created on British patterns, while SK and Japan were both US creations. The Japanese esp. only adopted a real concern for Human Rights after WW2, when they were completely westernized.

[Iskandar]

It doesn't matter where the concepts originated, though. There are democracies on every continent now and most governments at least pay lip service to the idea of human rights. They're global ideas now.

[Der Übermensch]

Certainly, but they are western values in origination.

[TheDarkHorse]

I will when more dictators don't. And they will as long as they are not answerable to their people and cannot be removed from power.
bad reason

What?
yeah you completely misconstrued my original point no surprise there

Try again when there's an unelected body that can turn down candidates because they don't meet the Ayatollah's ideological criteria. Not that it has any bearing on Iran either way.
um how about banning candidates from debates whats the difference

Stop the ad hominems. They accomplish nothing.
Stop misconstruing my points and I won't have to

. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that's what it is in practice.
um Iraq just had elections last week do you need something like a paper?

When there's violence daily between factions representing different segments of the population I think it'd be fair to call it a civil war.
were the race wars of the 60's in America civil wars?

Maybe you should Google "Kurds" and try to tell me there are none living in Iraq.
There are illegals living in the U.S are they entitled to the same privileges as citizens?

[Iskandar]

um how about banning candidates from debates whats the differenceDo I really need to explain the difference between the American and the Iranian political systems? Is it that bad?
Iran disqualifies candidates for being too liberal and reform-minded. Not excludes them from a televised debate, excludes them from running. America has never done anything like that. You are free to vote for whatever fringe candidate you wish.
um Iraq just had elections last week do you need something like a paper?Were they competitive? Or did people just vote along with their sectarian affiliations again?
were the race wars of the 60's in America civil wars?If black and white people had been firing rockets and AK-47s at each other maybe.
There are illegals living in the U.S are they entitled to the same privileges as citizens?Since when are the Kurds of Iraq illegal immigrants? They have been living in the region for centuries.

[hismajestythepope]

dude, youre clearly just dont understand how the world works

[Iskandar]

I'm just such an imperialist Westerner for wanting people to enjoy the same freedoms I do and be able to change their governments and shi.

[hismajestythepope]

same man, same

what right do we have to tell others to make their own choices and help them stand up to dictators?

[pooble]

man.... you guys are ****ing fierce! these debates.... man!

[siva_chair]

Well, since dictatorships don't have the greatest record when it comes to them...

Well neither does democracy.

[jaredong]

i disagree that human rights are not universal.

First, if you propose that "we should not impose our definitions and cultures on other societies" the question is why? Well, because it infringes.... the right of everyone to have self determination? The universal right to self determination? If there is one universal right, why not more?

Second, if what is right and wrong is relative to a culture, why is imperialism not culturally justified to carry out? Cant it be justified by "western" culture?

Third, cultures are complex and not monolithic. I'd say what justifies the "west" to be democratic is as much as what is being used to justify other cultures to be non-democratic: a small amount. Each culture both has traditional strains that can be said to said to be undemocratic (plato for example). Just because something originated from X conditions, does not mean it requires X conditions to be replicated necessarily.

I think when dictators want to justify their authoritarian regimes to the West, they conveniently claim cultural imperialism.

Heres an article by Amartya Sen
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sen.htm
Basically, he suggests that the West, just like in Confucian, Buddhist, Muslim traditions, there existed strands what we call as "human rights/democracy" today. When people point to the West's tradition of rights (say Greco-Roman), they fail to take into account the history of rights in other cultures as well.

There is a great deal that we can learn from studies of values in Asia and Europe, but they do not support or sustain the thesis of a grand dichotomy (or a "clash of civilizations"). Our ideas of political and personal rights have taken their particular form relatively recently, and it is hard to see them as "traditional" commitments of Western cultures. There are important antecedents of those commitments, but those antecedents can be found plentifully in Asian cultures as well as Western cultures.

[TheDarkHorse]

Do I really need to explain the difference between the American and the Iranian political systems? Is it that bad?
Iran disqualifies candidates for being too liberal and reform-minded. Not excludes them from a televised debate, excludes them from running.
whats the difference?

Were they competitive? Or did people just vote along with their sectarian affiliations again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7874180.stm
they were surprisingly competitive

If black and white people had been firing rockets and AK-47s at each other maybe.
So the textbook definition of a war depends not on the tensions created, but the weapons used :rolleyes:

Since when are the Kurds of Iraq illegal immigrants? They have been living in the region for centuries.
This is false. The Kurds have been looking for a place to call home for centuries. They first tried New Zealand and were rejected. Then Iraq. Iraq did not recognize them as part of the nation, and rightfully so.

[mph4ever]

I can name terrible authoritarian states all day. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, Congo, Burma, Laos, Libya. You think people have it better in those places than (a random sampling) Chile, Canada, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Costa Rica. The facts bear it out. Authoritarian states suck.
Um....

libya isn't all that bad according to the libyans i know.

[Iskandar]

whats the difference?The difference is that your right to vote has not been infringed upon like it is in Iran. That's besides the issue of Iran's elected politicians being subordinate to an unelected theocracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7874180.stm
they were surprisingly competitiveGood for Iraq. It's still in a state of civil war though.
So the textbook definition of a war depends not on the tensions created, but the weapons used :rolleyes:I really hope you're not actually trying to compare the Civil Rights strife to the Iraq war. I must have forgotten the part where two million refugees were created and the Black Panthers controlled sections of America's large cities.
This is false. The Kurds have been looking for a place to call home for centuries. They first tried New Zealand and were rejected. Then Iraq. Iraq did not recognize them as part of the nation, and rightfully so.Oh, so they're not citizens of Iraq despite living there? This is the same **** Saddam used to try to justify his persecution of the Kurds. They have just as much of a right to live there as the Arabs do.