First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
The truth? Freedom of speech? Espionage? Or just cyber terrorism?
Posted 12/11/10 , edited 12/11/10

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



As an American, my sense of Diplomacy may be malformed (as we, Americans, are not particularly known for our prowess in that area), but, in my opinion, Diplomacy is completely unrelated to morals- although I believe that we are born with some core morals- thou shalt not kill that which is of the same species as yourself, &c.- moral is a subjective thing, and, as such, varies from person to person- what the moral thing to do for one would be the immoral thing to do for another. Therefore, no one can have the 'moral high ground', and that there should be no morals involved in diplomacy. Diplomacy then, is the art of coming to an agreement with another nation while trying to extract as much terms favourable to your nation as possible through the divers mean of persuasion- it is about getting the most of what you want while limiting what the other nation wants. This does not call for morals, but, rather, credency and confidentiality. With the release of these documents, we now lose both of these- credency in our ability to maintain confidentiality, and credency in our words.
Objective morality stemmed from pure categorical reasoning is not subjected to any individual's standard. But rather that individual is acting accordingly via objective morality in order to apply moral worth through their expressions, thus they become moral agents not by their individual creeds but objective morality.

That's the objective truth behind "justice as fairness" that defines diplomacy as fair bargaining through transparency, not inequality through secrecy. And this is proven by human biology of the existence of mirror neurons, it's also how we learn differently than other great apes.


Objective morality, I believe, cannot exist mainly because morality is a human concept, and human concepts are always bound by objectivity. Thus independent source of 'Objective Morality' cannot exist because there is absolutely no way that it can be formed, even if formed by a congress of the World's leading Ethicians there will be always stain of societal prejudice,individual beliefs, Culture &c. For example, Descartes attempted to prove that the body and mind exist through reason, but his Catholicism forces God to be part of his Metaphysical system. Diplomacy is trascultural, transending the bound of morality- it is to attain the best deal for your country- just as bargaining and haggling's primary objective is to attain the best deal, and, if the whole affair is made public, the whole objective will be hindered. Privacy between the talk of nations is essential in that secret information and dossiers between governments are exchanged in hopes that it would increase their ability to attain their desired goals.
That's still not diplomacy between equals, but oppression towards the powerless. It lacks compassion, consideration, nor benevolence towards others. Thus it results innocent lives got killed for no good reason.

Yes, no American were killed in the cruise missile strike. But what about the innocent Yemenis who's got nothing to do with the American "diplomatic" objective of "war on terror"? No, they were never considered behind closed-door in the first place, between the US Military nor the Yemen government.

What's freedom to you? Is it the rights for the powerful to oppress the powerless? Or to be freed from oppression with dignity?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/11/10 , edited 12/11/10


One. Diplomacy is not a benevolent and compassionate affair, it is a fight to attain what you want while giving out as little as possible- both side knows they have things the other wants, and that the other have things they want, and, so, they try to use as much guiles as necessary to force the other to give out the most of what they want while trying to conserve, as much as possible, what the other wants. Here, small, third world countries are given a benefit, in that, being plentiful and abundant in natural resources, they have larger countries' hand tied in their lacking of it. Therefore, while there is bullying and forcing of hand, it can occur in equal parts on both side.

Two. Most modern political philosopher subscribe to the Social Contract theory, that is that the government is a contract between the people and the government, and that the government only rule with the consent of the people. If the Yemeni people are displeased with the result of diplomacy (as that can be readily felt without knowing what went on), they can go ahead and replace their government.

Three. Freedom is, in its most basic definition, being unbounded and unchained by metaphorical and figurative or physical chains.
Posted 12/11/10 , edited 12/12/10

longfenglim wrote:



One. Diplomacy is not a benevolent and compassionate affair, it is a fight to attain what you want while giving out as little as possible- both side knows they have things the other wants, and that the other have things they want, and, so, they try to use as much guiles as necessary to force the other to give out the most of what they want while trying to conserve, as much as possible, what the other wants. Here, small, third world countries are given a benefit, in that, being plentiful and abundant in natural resources, they have larger countries' hand tied in their lacking of it. Therefore, while there is bullying and forcing of hand, it can occur in equal parts on both side.

Two. Most modern political philosopher subscribe to the Social Contract theory, that is that the government is a contract between the people and the government, and that the government only rule with the consent of the people. If the Yemeni people are displeased with the result of diplomacy (as that can be readily felt without knowing what went on), they can go ahead and replace their government.

Three. Freedom is, in its most basic definition, being unbounded and unchained by metaphorical and figurative or physical chains.
That's war in and of itself, which is not the sole essence of diplomacy, but rather an extension from it. You limited your own options to coercion and bullying with your intention to wage war against your enemy, not your willingness to respect and trust your trading partner. I mean just how can "coercion and bullying" be of use to empower women as an US foreign policy?

Clinton said the goal of empowering women and girls is a "central tenet" of American foreign policy. "Women's equality is not just a moral issue, it's not just a humanitarian issue, it is not just a fairness issue," she said, "It is a security issue, it is a prosperity issue, and it is a peace issue.

"Therefore when I talk about why we need to integrate women's issues into discussions at the highest levels everywhere in the world, I'm not doing it just because I have a personal commitment or because President Obama cares about it. I'm doing it because it's in the vital interests of the United States of America."

Clinton said the status of women will be a key part of a new document the State Department is planning to release this week. Modeled on the Defense Department's review every four years of U.S. defenses, the "quadrennial diplomacy and development review" will assess American foreign policy.(citation)

So is the US Military at war with the Yemen government over natural resources then? Which is it? Free trade or fair trade?

Speaking of consent, is it still rational consent of the people based on informed choice? Or manipulated public opinion due to lack of government transparency. Consider the existence of both WikiLeaks and Amnesty International as global whistle-blowers, I would say that both the US Military and Yemen government cannot be trusted for speaking the objective truth.

Finally that's not freedom, but rather it's a state of anarchy. So you tell me, is that really what humans as social animals is about?
Posted 12/12/10
I believe that the internet shouldn't be censored by any standing government, since it interconnects people from every territory. If no one had any freedom to speak, we wouldn't even be allowed a mouth or any other ability to communicate unless told so by authorities. On the internet, there is all matter of traffic, from the most ordinary of things to the most treacherous. Much of what gets posted on the internet is a direct lie meant to stir people up, and that can be used to reap great profits for people unconcerned about truth. Yet, it often takes a lie spread to give the illusion of civil order, and people are very quick when it comes to accepting anything either too good to be true or outright, absurdly evil.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/13/10 , edited 12/13/10


'Tis often said that Diplomacy is war with words- it is a battle to obtain what you wish for in exchange for conserving your rescources. Saying thus, Diplomacy is then, as I said before, a process that is neither benevolent or, even, feeling, it is merely a transaction done in a clandestine manner.

Second, the people know that their government lack transperency, I know that of my government, the question is, do we really want it transperent, and nine out of ten, myself included, will probably say 'Not really', for, if it were really transperent, they all our information is broadcasted and we are more suceptible to enemy attacks.

Third- Anarchy is the state of absolute freedom, one of the reason Hobbes of Malmesbury propose the existence of the Social Contract is that we need to limit our freedom in favour of security.
Posted 12/13/10

longfenglim wrote:



'Tis often said that Diplomacy is war with words- it is a battle to obtain what you wish for in exchange for conserving your rescources. Saying thus, Diplomacy is then, as I said before, a process that is neither benevolent or, even, feeling, it is merely a transaction done in a clandestine manner.

Second, the people know that their government lack transperency, I know that of my government, the question is, do we really want it transperent, and nine out of ten, myself included, will probably say 'Not really', for, if it were really transperent, they all our information is broadcasted and we are more suceptible to enemy attacks.

Third- Anarchy is the state of absolute freedom, one of the reason Hobbes of Malmesbury propose the existence of the Social Contract is that we need to limit our freedom in favour of security.
No, for that will not explain the conservative policy of the national park regulation, which itself was solely an American concept with its first Yellowstone National Park back in 1872. Furthermore, conservation of natural resources is both an utilitarian and virtue ethic theorist ideal based on The Ethic of Care principle; a more efficient way to utilize natural resources as well as showing benevolence towards nature itself. And in deontologist morality this is the categorical imperative of imperfect duty known as responsibility. Therefore in a marketplace of ideas, conservation of natural resources is both moral and reasonable, thereby it is a better idea than needless waste.

And no, a more transparent government is categorically more secured from itself being corrupted. While only terrorists need to conceal their attack from the powerful through anonymity or secrecy. Thus objectively a corrupted government only relies on secrecy in order to protect itself from its own citizens, due to its manipulative and constant lying; the government was ashamed of itself.

Finally no, humans cannot know anything without themselves being socialized by their society. This is a fact due to the existence of human children raised in isolation -a complete lack of socialization- cannot obtain humanity solely by themselves. Therefore Hobbes' idea of anarchy is absolute freedom is itself an unrealistic ideology, when the fact is human nature is nurture.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/13/10

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



'Tis often said that Diplomacy is war with words- it is a battle to obtain what you wish for in exchange for conserving your rescources. Saying thus, Diplomacy is then, as I said before, a process that is neither benevolent or, even, feeling, it is merely a transaction done in a clandestine manner.

Second, the people know that their government lack transperency, I know that of my government, the question is, do we really want it transperent, and nine out of ten, myself included, will probably say 'Not really', for, if it were really transperent, they all our information is broadcasted and we are more suceptible to enemy attacks.

Third- Anarchy is the state of absolute freedom, one of the reason Hobbes of Malmesbury propose the existence of the Social Contract is that we need to limit our freedom in favour of security.
No, for that will not explain the conservative policy of the national park regulation, which itself was solely an American concept with its first Yellowstone National Park back in 1872. Furthermore, conservation of natural resources is both an utilitarian and virtue ethic theorist ideal based on The Ethic of Care principle; a more efficient way to utilize natural resources as well as showing benevolence towards nature itself. And in deontologist morality this is the categorical imperative of imperfect duty known as responsibility. Therefore in a marketplace of ideas, conservation of natural resources is both moral and reasonable, thereby it is a better idea than needless waste.

And no, a more transparent government is categorically more secured from itself being corrupted. While only terrorists need to conceal their attack from the powerful through anonymity or secrecy. Thus objectively a corrupted government only relies on secrecy in order to protect itself from its own citizens, due to its manipulative and constant lying; the government was ashamed of itself.

Finally no, humans cannot know anything without themselves being socialized by their society. This is a fact due to the existence of human children raised in isolation -a complete lack of socialization- cannot obtain humanity solely by themselves. Therefore Hobbes' idea of anarchy is absolute freedom is itself an unrealistic ideology, when the fact is human nature is nurture.


First, Nat'l Parks and International Diplomacy are two different affairs- one is created to preserve nature's splendour, while the other created to, for lack of a better term, haggle with other nations and try and get the best deal. None are created by any moral or ethical sentiments- Teddy Roosevelt was an avid outdoorsman, and wanted to retain places where we, or rather, he may still enjoy the splendours of the great outdoors and hunt the great Grizzly Bears and Mooses.

Second, transperency in government is as inefficient as transperency in the military, if the enemy know of our plans, we may as well not fight at all.

Third, because brevity is the soul of wit and time, I shall make my rebuttal short- human are born with certain, innate knowledge and qualities, as such, and all other knowledge, empirical or otherwise, are processed and analysed rationally in the mind. So, all human, being born with certain innate qualities, are born with certain selfishness- and this selfishness, being the nature of man, leads to the desire to hold an object that another fellow creature wish to own, arising in conflict- this is ended by the creation of the state, to resolve such dispute and keep security and order.

357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M / canada
Offline
Posted 12/14/10
I would like to point out It is the responsibility of the press to inform & if wicki Leaks detractors knew of one person put in harms way they would tell us all.It would lead on fox "news"for a week.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 12/14/10
Personally I am in favor of a all-transparant goverment, the goverment represents me, because I support it and I vote for it.
When the goverment is doing something I disagree with I have the option to stop supporting my goverment or vote for a other party, however this is only possible if I know what my goverment is up too.
If I dont know what my goverment is up too I can keep supporting it while I completely disagree with their actions.
In my eyes this is what democracy is about, having the ability to choose differently next time, but for that option to exist we the people need to know what our goverments are doing, every single detail of it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/14/10

clawdfrawg wrote:

I would like to point out It is the responsibility of the press to inform & if wicki Leaks detractors knew of one person put in harms way they would tell us all.It would lead on fox "news"for a week.


I am not saying that it harms a single person, I am saying that it harms the government as an entity in that it weakens our negotiating prowess and in that we, as a nation, has lost face, thereby having other nations lose confidence in our ability to keep some things silent and our people thinking that we can't trust the government on anything.
Posted 12/14/10 , edited 12/14/10

longfenglim wrote:



First, Nat'l Parks and International Diplomacy are two different affairs- one is created to preserve nature's splendour, while the other created to, for lack of a better term, haggle with other nations and try and get the best deal. None are created by any moral or ethical sentiments- Teddy Roosevelt was an avid outdoorsman, and wanted to retain places where we, or rather, he may still enjoy the splendours of the great outdoors and hunt the great Grizzly Bears and Mooses.

Second, transperency in government is as inefficient as transperency in the military, if the enemy know of our plans, we may as well not fight at all.

Third, because brevity is the soul of wit and time, I shall make my rebuttal short- human are born with certain, innate knowledge and qualities, as such, and all other knowledge, empirical or otherwise, are processed and analysed rationally in the mind. So, all human, being born with certain innate qualities, are born with certain selfishness- and this selfishness, being the nature of man, leads to the desire to hold an object that another fellow creature wish to own, arising in conflict- this is ended by the creation of the state, to resolve such dispute and keep security and order.
If that's your strongest claim in order for yourself to establish that secrecy is the result of the human nature known as selfishness, then I have categorical reasoning to rebuke that unrealistic claim with factual evidences regarding the reality of human babies:

We often criticized on how our human emotions impaired our judgments, when ironically this is precisely what's causing ourselves to become morally impaired; our patriarchy society that socializes emotional repression is making us both emotionally and thus morally powerless. That's how we as a society still cannot obtain universal morality, for we've yet to challenge the unrealistic status quote that even you yourself knew it needs to be changed:

The aspect of morality that we truly marvel at — its generality and universality — is the product of culture, not of biology. There is no need to posit divine intervention. A fully developed morality is the product of cultural development, of the accumulation of rational insight and hard-earned innovations. The morality we start off with is primitive, not merely in the obvious sense that it’s incomplete, but in the deeper sense that when individuals and societies aspire toward an enlightened morality — one in which all beings capable of reason and suffering are on an equal footing, where all people are equal — they are fighting with what children have from the get-go. The biologist Richard Dawkins was right, then, when he said at the start of his book “The Selfish Gene,” “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” Or as a character in the Kingsley Amis novel “One Fat Englishman” puts it, “It was no wonder that people were so horrible when they started life as children.”

Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest. But our capacities as babies are sharply limited. It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to.
(citation)
This is also how I came across my harsh criticism about human morality.


longfenglim wrote:


clawdfrawg wrote:

I would like to point out It is the responsibility of the press to inform & if wicki Leaks detractors knew of one person put in harms way they would tell us all.It would lead on fox "news"for a week.


I am not saying that it harms a single person, I am saying that it harms the government as an entity in that it weakens our negotiating prowess and in that we, as a nation, has lost face, thereby having other nations lose confidence in our ability to keep some things silent and our people thinking that we can't trust the government on anything.
But isn't that's precisely how the Chinese government operates? Behind its "Iron Curtain"?

China, one of the biggest Internet policers, took no chances with the latest online sensation and blocked the WikiLeaks website Wednesday amid potentially embarrassing claims made in leaked U.S. diplomatic memos posted there.

Attempts to access wikileaks.org and cablegate.wikileaks.org were met with a notice saying the connection had been reset, or were diverted the user to popular Chinese search engine Baidu. That's the standard response when the connection to an overseas-based website has been cut.

The U.S. Embassy memos — called cables, though they are mostly encrypted electronic communication — contain some frank talk about and attributed to Chinese figures and their North Korean allies.

In one, a Chinese diplomat is quoted describing North Korea as a "spoiled child" for attempting to win U.S. attention with a provocative missile test.

China's representative to six-nation disarmament talks, meanwhile, is described by a South Korean diplomat as an "arrogant, Marx-spouting former Red Guard who 'knows nothing about North Korea, nothing about nonproliferation.'"

Another memo reveals details of a Chinese contingency plan for North Korea's collapse — the existence of which is likely to drive a wedge between the allies at the very least.

The leaks also claimed that leadership of China's ruling Communist Party directed a cyber-intrusion into Google's computer systems, and expressed concern over attempts by Iranian front companies to obtain Chinese nuclear technology.

It wasn't clear when the blocks were imposed, although a vast swath of the Internet is inaccessible behind China's firewall, including social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Human rights and political dissent-themed sites are also routinely banned, although technologically savvy users can easily jump the so-called "Great Firewall" with proxy servers or other alternatives.

While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Time magazine this week that the Chinese government is "terrified of free speech," he takes heart from their fear.

"I think that is a very optimistic sign because it means that speech can still cause reform," he said in an online interview. "We believe closed societies have the most reform potential."

China's government has taken a low-key approach to the leaks, with the Foreign Ministry saying it would not comment on specific assertions in the cables.

"China takes note of relevant reports. We hope the U.S. side will properly handle the relevant issue. As for the content of the documents, we do not comment on that," ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the Global Times, a provocative tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party mouthpiece Peoples Daily, labeled the disclosure a "nefarious slander against China."

It also wondered why the U.S. didn't block the posting of the leaks, saying that raised questions as to whether it had reached some form of tacit understanding with WikiLeaks.(citation)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/14/10 , edited 12/14/10


Your quote can go either way, when rationally processed- the children tested are already, in some way, influanced by their parents, that is, they already understand that if they do wrong they should be punished, and if they do right, they will be rewarded- I would contend that this is an extension of Human inherent selfishness, that they only want to see the code applied to them applied to someone else, proving, now, nothing. I would further argue that this stems from a selfish, innate version of 'fairness', that is, what is applied to me must, in similiar situation, be applied everyone else.

Additionally, morality does not play a role in any of this, because 'morality' is merely what yourself and the cosensus of your society deem 'right' and 'wrong'. While some morals are, I contend, innate in human nature, that is 'killing same-creatures is bad' and the like, these base morals are sometime, through life and the teaching of our parents and society either distorted, destoryed, or reformed. Iranian society, for example, would see stoning of adulteress and flaying of heretics as 'moral'. Also, emotions only makes these faults in 'morality' worst- male jealousy and strenght lends itself to female oppression, and creating codes that devalue womanhood to their fidelity to their husvand- therefore, it is only in a stoic and wholly rational society can a more just (for it can never truly be completely objective) system of morality be created and applied.

But, on another note, concerning the Chinese government, the Chinese government is allowed some privies from us and its citizen, as we are entitled to the same priveledges, but, whereas we allow lots of necessary transperency and lack of government control on the research, China is still stuck upon a revamped version of the ancient Imperial system that replaced patrilinial line of Emperors with leaders choosen among the ranks of the ruling party. While there should be transperancies, we cannot allow everything to be public if it goes against the best interest of the nation, for it is by nation, that is the people living within a geographic area, that the government attains it power and it is to whom the government rules.
Posted 12/14/10 , edited 12/14/10

longfenglim wrote:



Your quote can go either way, when rationally processed- the children tested are already, in some way, influanced by their parents, that is, they already understand that if they do wrong they should be punished, and if they do right, they will be rewarded- I would contend that this is an extension of Human inherent selfishness, that they only want to see the code applied to them applied to someone else, proving, now, nothing. I would further argue that this stems from a selfish, innate version of 'fairness', that is, what is applied to me must, in similiar situation, be applied everyone else.

Additionally, morality does not play a role in any of this, because 'morality' is merely what yourself and the cosensus of your society deem 'right' and 'wrong'. While some morals are, I contend, innate in human nature, that is 'killing same-creatures is bad' and the like, these base morals are sometime, through life and the teaching of our parents and society either distorted, destoryed, or reformed. Iranian society, for example, would see stoning of adulteress and flaying of heretics as 'moral'. Also, emotions only makes these faults in 'morality' worst- male jealousy and strenght lends itself to female oppression, and creating codes that devalue womanhood to their fidelity to their husvand- therefore, it is only in a stoic and wholly rational society can a more just (for it can never truly be completely objective) system of morality be created and applied.

But, on another note, concerning the Chinese government, the Chinese government is allowed some privies from us and its citizen, as we are entitled to the same priveledges, but, whereas we allow lots of necessary transperency and lack of government control on the research, China is still stuck upon a revamped version of the ancient Imperial system that replaced patrilinial line of Emperors with leaders choosen among the ranks of the ruling party. While there should be transperancies, we cannot allow everything to be public if it goes against the best interest of the nation, for it is by nation, that is the people living within a geographic area, that the government attains it power and it is to whom the government rules.
First, you proposal that the babies in those research were already under some sort of parental influence doesn't make sense. When you didn't indicate a specific social process showing how this information was passed down from the parents. Unless you're insisting that human babies can somehow "talk" sense just like human adults could, the human parents are simply unable to convey morality onto their babies. I mean come on, how many parents do you honestly think that know just what dramaturgy is? They outta be really doped to believe that whatever happened in Hollywood films can be true.

Also, when the morality of tit-for-tat exists in nature itself, and not the result of human culture. What's unnatural is your amoral practice of human diplomacy as solely warfare.

Finally when the government authorities as impartial civil servants are hiding their own wrongdoings from the public, they're no longer working for the best interest of their nation nor their people. And then there's no social contract based on mutual trust, thus no nation state without moral laws. When nation state is an artificial concept based on human culture, not an objective reality.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/15/10 , edited 12/15/10

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Your quote can go either way, when rationally processed- the children tested are already, in some way, influanced by their parents, that is, they already understand that if they do wrong they should be punished, and if they do right, they will be rewarded- I would contend that this is an extension of Human inherent selfishness, that they only want to see the code applied to them applied to someone else, proving, now, nothing. I would further argue that this stems from a selfish, innate version of 'fairness', that is, what is applied to me must, in similiar situation, be applied everyone else.

Additionally, morality does not play a role in any of this, because 'morality' is merely what yourself and the cosensus of your society deem 'right' and 'wrong'. While some morals are, I contend, innate in human nature, that is 'killing same-creatures is bad' and the like, these base morals are sometime, through life and the teaching of our parents and society either distorted, destoryed, or reformed. Iranian society, for example, would see stoning of adulteress and flaying of heretics as 'moral'. Also, emotions only makes these faults in 'morality' worst- male jealousy and strenght lends itself to female oppression, and creating codes that devalue womanhood to their fidelity to their husvand- therefore, it is only in a stoic and wholly rational society can a more just (for it can never truly be completely objective) system of morality be created and applied.

But, on another note, concerning the Chinese government, the Chinese government is allowed some privies from us and its citizen, as we are entitled to the same priveledges, but, whereas we allow lots of necessary transperency and lack of government control on the research, China is still stuck upon a revamped version of the ancient Imperial system that replaced patrilinial line of Emperors with leaders choosen among the ranks of the ruling party. While there should be transperancies, we cannot allow everything to be public if it goes against the best interest of the nation, for it is by nation, that is the people living within a geographic area, that the government attains it power and it is to whom the government rules.
First, you proposal that the babies in those research were already under some sort of parental influence doesn't make sense. When you didn't indicate a specific social process showing how this information was passed down from the parents. Unless you're insisting that human babies can somehow "talk" sense just like human adults could, the human parents are simply unable to convey morality onto their babies. I mean come on, how many parents do you honestly think that know just what dramaturgy is? They outta be really doped to believe that whatever happened in Hollywood films can be true.

Also, when the morality of tit-for-tat exists in nature itself, and not the result of human culture. What's unnatural is your amoral practice of human diplomacy as solely warfare.

Finally when the government authorities as impartial civil servants are hiding their own wrongdoings from the public, they're no longer working for the best interest of their nation nor their people. And then there's no social contract based on mutual trust, thus no nation state without moral laws. When nation state is an artificial concept based on human culture, not an objective reality.


First, babies are already subjected to a 'reward-punishment' system by their parents, if they do what the parents consider immoral, they are punished, and if they do something the parents think is morally correct, they are rewarded. Unless the child is ripped away from their mother's arm at birth, kept in confinment and free from outside influences, than there must be some parental influences on the children. Of course, they hopefully didn't conduct it in this manner, for, I hope, they are human being with human hearts, and not savage and beastial Yahoos, who think that the wee bit of scientific progress is worth the ruination of a multitude of lives. This then ties in to the self-centred sense of 'fairness', that is, if I am punished for doing so and so, so too must others- what, I believe, you called 'Tit-for-Tat'.

Second, Diplomacy, because it transcend cultures, must be amoral to be objective, for morals shall always be objective. If you really want to apply morals to diplomacy, whose moral is right, your morals or theirs? National Selfinterest must then be in our goal- as I have said before. For example, if we have a sweat-shops in some third world country, it would be in both our self-interest to maintain a stable government, if we maintain a tyrannical dictatorship, there will be dissatisfaction on all level, and passive-agressive tactics will be adopted by the workers of the sweatshop, who views the American business as upholder of the tyranny, will then adopt passive techniques to voice their discontent, such as poisoning the product or slowing down production. But, if we help create and uphold a liberal democracy that the people are content with, then, they are much more willing to work, and, being so, this will help their country industrialise and we profit by their cheap products- therefore, it is in both our best interest to create and maintain a liberal democracy in that third world country.

Finally, there shall always be functions of the government, especially concerning the military, the must be clandestine, battle plans must not fall to enemy hands, &c. &c. If we were at war with another nation, and we know that we can save lives and expenditures on, at the very least, our side by the assasination of the enemy leader, what sense is there, then, in releasing this information to the public for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to read aloud to the world?
Posted 12/18/10 , edited 12/18/10

longfenglim wrote:



First, babies are already subjected to a 'reward-punishment' system by their parents, if they do what the parents consider immoral, they are punished, and if they do something the parents think is morally correct, they are rewarded. Unless the child is ripped away from their mother's arm at birth, kept in confinment and free from outside influences, than there must be some parental influences on the children. Of course, they hopefully didn't conduct it in this manner, for, I hope, they are human being with human hearts, and not savage and beastial Yahoos, who think that the wee bit of scientific progress is worth the ruination of a multitude of lives. This then ties in to the self-centred sense of 'fairness', that is, if I am punished for doing so and so, so too must others- what, I believe, you called 'Tit-for-Tat'.

Second, Diplomacy, because it transcend cultures, must be amoral to be objective, for morals shall always be objective. If you really want to apply morals to diplomacy, whose moral is right, your morals or theirs? National Selfinterest must then be in our goal- as I have said before. For example, if we have a sweat-shops in some third world country, it would be in both our self-interest to maintain a stable government, if we maintain a tyrannical dictatorship, there will be dissatisfaction on all level, and passive-agressive tactics will be adopted by the workers of the sweatshop, who views the American business as upholder of the tyranny, will then adopt passive techniques to voice their discontent, such as poisoning the product or slowing down production. But, if we help create and uphold a liberal democracy that the people are content with, then, they are much more willing to work, and, being so, this will help their country industrialise and we profit by their cheap products- therefore, it is in both our best interest to create and maintain a liberal democracy in that third world country.

Finally, there shall always be functions of the government, especially concerning the military, the must be clandestine, battle plans must not fall to enemy hands, &c. &c. If we were at war with another nation, and we know that we can save lives and expenditures on, at the very least, our side by the assasination of the enemy leader, what sense is there, then, in releasing this information to the public for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to read aloud to the world?
That's irrelevant and useless due to the fact that full object permanence doesn't happen to human babies until 18 months into their development:

So your lack of understanding on the objective reality that is the biological immaturity of human children notwithstanding, your misinterpretation of extrinsic motivators like reward and punishment as nature's morality of cooperation/"tit-for-tat" is also incorrect. I would suggest that you shouldn't venture this line of debate with me due to your lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectation in parenting taboos.

Also your "diplomacy" is nothing more than neo-libertarianism, not liberal democracy. So stop telling lies that only works for your advantage, for I know political science better than most Yahoos thanks to my sociology discipline.

Finally, your US Military acted on their own against President Obama's order according to the leaked cables itself:

AQAP STRIKES: CONCERN FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
---------------------------------------------

¶4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes
against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the
killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that
the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of
an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into
a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister
Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of
terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike. (Comment:
Saleh's conversation on the civilian casualties suggests he
has not been well briefed by his advisors on the strike in
Abyan, a site that the ROYG has been unable to access to
determine with any certainty the level of collateral damage.
End Comment.)
AQAP leader Nassr al-Wahishi and extremist
cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may still be alive, Saleh said, but
the December strikes had already caused al-Qaeda operatives
to turn themselves in to authorities and residents in
affected areas to deny refuge to al-Qaeda. Saleh raised the
issue of the Saudi Government and Jawf governorate tribal
sheikh Amin al-Okimi, a subject that is being reported
through other channels.(citation)
Looks like none of them knew just exactly what the real damage was according to Amnesty International, but when they were literally conducting the operation blindsided that's to be expected:

SHIFTING AIRSTRIKE STRATEGIES
-----------------------------

¶5. (S/NF) President Obama has approved providing U.S.
intelligence in support of ROYG ground operations against
AQAP targets, General Petraeus informed Saleh. Saleh reacted
coolly, however, to the General's proposal to place USG
personnel inside the area of operations armed with real-time,
direct feed intelligence from U.S. ISR platforms overhead.
"You cannot enter the operations area and you must stay in
the joint operations center," Saleh responded. Any U.S.
casualties in strikes against AQAP would harm future efforts,
Saleh asserted. Saleh did not have any objection, however,
to General Petraeus' proposal to move away from the use of
cruise missiles and instead have U.S. fixed-wing bombers
circle outside Yemeni territory, "out of sight," and engage
AQAP targets when actionable intelligence became available.
Saleh lamented the use of cruise missiles that are "not very
accurate" and welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed
precision-guided bombs instead. "We'll continue saying the
bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said, prompting Deputy
Prime Minister Alimi to joke that he had just "lied" by
telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa
were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.

(citation)
I criticized the US Military's cruise missile strike when I said "The irony of those who claimed to be at war on terrorism ended up acting exactly like the terrorists did not escape me." And when the President's exact order was to conduct more investigation on the ground, the missile strike itself conducted by the US Military alone was thereby disproportionally unnecessary. And I got something to say about that as well.

So if you're gonna turn away from 武德/Jus In Bello, then deny all your US Military's amorality(Tom), immaturity(Dick), tyranny(Harry), and irresponsibility(阿貓阿狗) as military secrets all you want. For I know better than what ultimately is a lack of insight.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.