Protester Arrested

[junior]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
If September 11 was set up by the government, why didn't the Al Qaeda try and deny it? And if it really was Al Qaeda's doing, was America supposed to just BOHICA or something?

No clue.
But then again, I haven't read the French bestseller.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
He implies it's a correct, defendable position that makes sense. It is not.

Buh? How is it not a defendable position? From Korea's point of view, nukes are a damn good idea. They dissuade foreign interference, not to mention offering the chance to blackmail other countries. That's as defendable as positions get.

Pick your option, both are stupid. People are not ignoring NK because of the nuclear threat. To resist being blackmailed is not to ignore the threat. Also, they shouldn't be respecting more NK because is a totalitarian dictatorship with nuclear weapons.

Let me put it this way. You're walking down the street at night. Someone runs out of a side alley with a gun, and tells you to hand over your money or die. You obviously don't like what he's doing. You think he's a criminal and he should be locked up or worse. But, unless you are a fairy tale character, it would be incredibly stupid of you to just ignore him and keep walking, even if by doing so, you think you're not ignoring him but rather resisting his blackmail attempts. Ergo, it's incredibly stupid to ignore a nuclear Korea. Any government leader who chooses to dismiss Korea as merely trying to blackmail the world might as well have "idiot" stamped on his/her forehead.

You are just twisting further the already twisted things he wrote. He said NK was making nukes for the noble reason of protecting itself from the greedy capitalists. If you buy that crap, you should really dig the whole NK propaganda that evil US is planning to invade their great country, rob them of their wealth, and remove their people from the wonders communism.

He didn't say any of this stuff, though - you did. He said NK has good reasons, and it is your mind that added all these ridiculous ideological subtexts. This is stupid. I'm sure you can defeat your imaginary Napoleon in a debate, but maybe you should try actually debating with the real Napoleon instead.

Geeze, now you've made me sound like a loon, talking about imaginary and real Napoleons .

The point is not that countries don't want self-determination. Of course they do. But self-determination is not the issue here. It’s blackmail. It’s threatening to nuke other countries, as he stated himself.

Ah, but self-determination the point is. That's pretty much what Napoleon said - that most countries want self-determination, and that for Korea, the method to achieve this was to develop nukes. What they do with them isn't particularly relevant. You can call it blackmail if you like, but then every country is guilty of it. Every army the world has ever seen was raised with the intention of either threatening to attack someone, or threatening to kick someone's ass if they attack.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

And with those motives we could have another Iraq on our hands.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
Buh? How is it not a defendable position? From Korea's point of view, nukes are a damn good idea. They dissuade foreign interference, not to mention offering the chance to blackmail other countries. That's as defendable as positions get.

You are defending state terrorism with nukes. Plain and simple. While it's something common these days, it's so preposterous it doesn't even deserve a response.

Any government leader who chooses to dismiss Korea as merely trying to blackmail the world might as well have "idiot" stamped on his/her forehead.

You ignored my previous post. No government ignores NK, in fact, it's hard to ignore some fanatical communist country with nukes. As stated in the previous message, the word "disregard" also means to not threat with the proper respect.

that most countries want self-determination, and that for Korea, the method to achieve this was to develop nukes.

That's a lie. The communists are killing people there for decades. Millions died of hunger in the past years due to the failure of their economic system. No one prevented them from doing so.

What they do with them isn't particularly relevant. You can call it blackmail if you like, but then every country is guilty of it.

Here's the paradigm of the apology for genocide and terrorism. "Every country is guilty of it", so anyone can commit any atrocity immune to criticism.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
You are defending state terrorism with nukes. Plain and simple. While it's something common these days, it's so preposterous it doesn't even deserve a response.

Which part of from their point of view don't you understand? Let me spell it out for you. North Korea does not have nuclear weapons just because they are evil. They have them for a purpose. They have them, because as far as they're concerned, it makes perfect sense. Now, Napoleon did not say that hey, it's really great for all of us that NK has nukes. He said that NK has good reasons to have nukes - and, I say it again, they do.

It may be that the word "good" is what is confusing you. Good is not equal to morally good. I mean, it can mean that, but it takes on a whole range of other meanings, too. In this particular case, and from a North Korean point of view, good is simply what works for them. Am I defending state terrorism with nukes? Nope. Am I happy about NK having nukes? Nope. Does it matter? Not in the slightest.

You may also want to consider that morality is something that doesn't translate very well into international politics. You might think North Korea is a really nasty place. You'd be right. But guess what? Nobody gives a damn. Not even America. If Korea was a country of 1+ billion people, America would not only not include them in their axis of evil, but would be actively defending its abuses of moral rights before the American public - as they do with China. If Iraq had 1+ billion people... same thing.

Here's the paradigm of the apology for genocide and terrorism. "Every country is guilty of it", so anyone can commit any atrocity immune to criticism.

Again, you're using your imagination instead of your eyes. I'm not apologising for what they're doing, I'm saying it's a completely irrelevant criterium. States work with different moral criteria than ordinary people do. Where we deal with good and evil, they deal only with allies and enemies - and these criteria do not overlap. I really wish they did, but they don't.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
North Korea does not have nuclear weapons just because they are evil. They have them for a purpose. They have them, because as far as they're concerned, it makes perfect sense.

So if something "makes sense" of has a purpose, it can't be evil. Evil necessarely has no purpuse and never make sense. Sure thing.

from a North Korean point of view, good is simply what works for them. Am I defending state terrorism with nukes? Nope. Am I happy about NK having nukes? Nope. Does it matter? Not in the slightest.

By this logic if state terrorism works for them, it's a defendable position? Nice.

You might think North Korea is a really nasty place. You'd be right. But guess what? Nobody gives a damn. Not even America.

So if the US tries to remove a dictatorship, they are evil imperialists. If they do nothing, they are evil imperialists that don't care.

Again, you're using your imagination instead of your eyes. I'm not apologising for what they're doing, I'm saying it's a completely irrelevant criterium.

You said it was a good thing for their point of view to build nukes, and that it was a defendable position. Even if it meant State terrorism. Now if “bad”, “evil” and “wrong” are a “completely irrelevant criterium”, then nothing at all is bad, now is it?

States work with different moral criteria than ordinary people do. Where we deal with good and evil, they deal only with allies and enemies - and these criteria do not overlap. I really wish they did, but they don't.

One again he does it! Here's another paradigm of the apology for genocide and terrorism. No crime commited by a State is evil, because "States work with different moral criteria than ordinary people do" where "good and evil" doesn't apply. Hey, genocide is not evil, the State doesn’t work with ordinary morality. Those innocent civilians were the “enemy”! Embrace the newspeak!

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
So if something "makes sense" of has a purpose, it can't be evil. Evil necessarely has no purpuse and never make sense. Sure thing.

I'm sorry, I guess I must have lost you somewhere along the way when I was explaining how "good" does not necessarily have moral connotations, and therefore the opposite of "good" is not necessarily "evil".

So if the US tries to remove a dictatorship, they are evil imperialists. If they do nothing, they are evil imperialists that don't care.

If you say so... I know I didn't .

You said it was a good thing for their point of view to build nukes, and that it was a defendable position. Even if it meant State terrorism.

Yeah, horrible me, explaining how other people think. Horrible, horrible. I could only explain how they think if I worshipped and admired them, after all.

One again he does it! Here's another paradigm of the apology for genocide and terrorism. No crime commited by a State is evil, because "States work with different moral criteria than ordinary people do" where "good and evil" doesn't apply. Hey, genocide is not evil, the State doesn’t work with ordinary morality. Those innocent civilians were the “enemy”! Embrace the newspeak!

I agree on one thing - once again, he does it. He being you, with your very active imagination, allowing you to respond to all the stuff that isn't there.

I was going to have another long response, but I hate to waste my time repeating myself for the fiftieth time.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
I'm sorry, I guess I must have lost you somewhere along the way when I was explaining how "good" does not necessarily have moral connotations, and therefore the opposite of "good" is not necessarily "evil".

It was you, not me, that used the word "evil" in this case. In fact, your exact quote was:

North Korea does not have nuclear weapons just because they are evil. They have them for a purpose. They have them, because as far as they're concerned, it makes perfect sense.

My point remains. The fact that it makes sense and has a purpose doesn’t make it less “evil”.

If you say so... I know I didn't .

Yes you did. Look back on your posts. Here's what you said about Korea using nukes to blackmail:

That's as defendable as positions get.

So just try to read the what is being responded to.

I agree on one thing - once again, he does it. He being you, with your very active imagination, allowing you to respond to all the stuff that isn't there.

How come it wasn't there? Yes, you said it, and here's the quote:

States work with different moral criteria than ordinary people do. Where we deal with good and evil, they deal only with allies and enemies

How to deny the obvious implications on this line of thinking? But let's look back on the thread a little. You was defending NK use of nukes for blackmail with this:

What they do with them isn't particularly relevant. You can call it blackmail if you like, but then every country is guilty of it.

It’s all from your quotes. Pay attention to what you say, and to what it implicates.

 

[Filler]

Delance, stop flaming the moderator, please. You seem to have this petty issue with Quarto, please deal with it.

 

[Eder]

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
It’s all from your quotes. Pay attention to what you say, and to what it implicates.

Good for you, Delance. You can't be bothered reading what I said, so instead you choose to pretend that you know better than me what I meant.

 

[WildWeasel]

Delance and TC have that problem in common.

 

[Delance]

I find it odd that the very accusation against me, i.e., replying to things weren't there, is based by things I didn't say.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by WildWeasel
Delance and TC have that problem in common.

Shush, you.

 

[WildWeasel]

I never shush. Why bother asking?

 

[TC]

It had a period after it

 

[WildWeasel]

A period that I happily overlooked.