[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime. [/quote]
So?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime. [/quote]
So?[/quote]
Well, I quess I don’t understand why that ceases with Iraq and Afghanistan. If, according to your purely individualistic view, even one (since rights only reside in individuals) Iraqi–or Afghani–embraces US and coalition forces as liberating forces, than you must accept it as justified.
Twas my thought precisely. This whole every man an island deal is just comprehensively unworkable once the book closes. I do stand by what I said though. Lifty believes this because he wants the world to be a better place. I’m serious and there is a certain nobility in that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime. [/quote]
So?[/quote]
Well, I quess I don’t understand why that ceases with Iraq and Afghanistan. If, according to your purely individualistic view, even one (since rights only reside in individuals) Iraqi–or Afghani–embraces US and coalition forces as liberating forces, than you must accept it as justified.
[/quote]
No I do not, because no matter how bad someone else wants your help it is up to you if and how you help.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime. [/quote]
So?[/quote]
Well, I quess I don’t understand why that ceases with Iraq and Afghanistan. If, according to your purely individualistic view, even one (since rights only reside in individuals) Iraqi–or Afghani–embraces US and coalition forces as liberating forces, than you must accept it as justified.
[/quote]
No I do not, because no matter how bad someone else wants your help it is up to you if and how you help.
[/quote]
That makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with your previous answers. If the right to violently rebel against a tyrannical regime lies within an individual, and if he has the right to request and accept allies, than the wars are justified through his circumstances alone.
It seems to me you’re forced to retreat, perhaps redefining the right to violent rebellion as some sort of right birthed from consensus. A national-collective right.
[quote]Supplenation wrote:
I don’t post much, but topic’s like this do bring me out of the wood work so to speak. I think a person would be quite naive to believe any thing that the U.S government puts out through it’s P.R department (the mass media). If any one here spends just a little bit of time researching and studying the past history of what the U.S govt( many governments) has been involved in and actually admitted involvement in, it’s quite shocking.
A good example is the CIA’s Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, which was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human “mind control” research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continuing through the late 1960s and well in the 1970’s and it used U.S. and Canadian citizens ( against their will) as its test subjects, MKULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse (even ritual child sexual abuse)
It got so bad that congress finally began an “investigation” in the 1970’s and ended up giving the CIA a slap on the wrist, and the CIA promised to end the program. Yet is it common knowledge that this sadistic so called “research” continued under different names. People please don’t just consume what the government/mass media put’s on the table in front of you. Step back and take a look at the bigger picture and this giant charade that is the “war on terror”. I also want to make it clear, that I’m not adding to this discussion to belittle or insult anyone, just exchange idea’s and different view points.[/quote]
Is it known what happened to the children that were subject to this research?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Supplenation wrote:
I don’t post much, but topic’s like this do bring me out of the wood work so to speak. I think a person would be quite naive to believe any thing that the U.S government puts out through it’s P.R department (the mass media). If any one here spends just a little bit of time researching and studying the past history of what the U.S govt( many governments) has been involved in and actually admitted involvement in, it’s quite shocking.
A good example is the CIA’s Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, which was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human “mind control” research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continuing through the late 1960s and well in the 1970’s and it used U.S. and Canadian citizens ( against their will) as its test subjects, MKULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse (even ritual child sexual abuse)
It got so bad that congress finally began an “investigation” in the 1970’s and ended up giving the CIA a slap on the wrist, and the CIA promised to end the program. Yet is it common knowledge that this sadistic so called “research” continued under different names. People please don’t just consume what the government/mass media put’s on the table in front of you. Step back and take a look at the bigger picture and this giant charade that is the “war on terror”. I also want to make it clear, that I’m not adding to this discussion to belittle or insult anyone, just exchange idea’s and different view points.[/quote]
Is it known what happened to the children that were subject to this research?
[/quote]
It’s a load of bollocks. There was no ‘ritual child abuse’ etc. There were experiments with LSD on people(adults) who volunteered. A few CIA agents put some LSD in another agent’s coffee as a joke and he jumped out a window and died. That’s about it.
In contrast, Timothy Leary wished to add LSD to California’s water supply so everyone could jump out of windows etc. This is before he escaped from prison and fled to Algeria to live with Black Panther terrorists with the aid of Weatherman terrorists. Peace out big-daddy-o, I gotta split.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
That makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with your previous answers. If the right to violently rebel against a tyrannical regime lies within an individual, and if he has the right to request and accept allies, than the wars are justified through his circumstances alone.
It seems to me you’re forced to retreat, perhaps redefining the right to violent rebellion as some sort of right birthed from consensus. A national-collective right.[/quote]
Something orion said ‘makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with’ his ‘previous answer’? Are you sure? His comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler seemed sound to me.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No I do not, because no matter how bad someone else wants your help it is up to you if and how you help.
[/quote]
The Orion “Fuck You, You Can Suffer 'Cause I Have No Obligation To Help” School of Ethics.[/quote]
As opposed to the Chushin “hell yeah, Ill help no mather how many villages I have to wipe out” doctrine?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, do you have the right to use even violence in a bid to liberate yourself from the rule of a despotic tyrant?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]Is that inherent to you as an individual, or does it depend on the consensus of the nation you reside in?[/quote]I’ve been waiting to see how he attempts to get this noose off his neck. We don’t usually have to wait this long
[/quote]
Inherent in the individual. [/quote]
Surely that individual can then enlist and accept help in his otherwise one man rebellion, even if the rest of his fellow citizens are fine living under the regime. [/quote]
So?[/quote]
Well, I quess I don’t understand why that ceases with Iraq and Afghanistan. If, according to your purely individualistic view, even one (since rights only reside in individuals) Iraqi–or Afghani–embraces US and coalition forces as liberating forces, than you must accept it as justified.
[/quote]
No I do not, because no matter how bad someone else wants your help it is up to you if and how you help.
[/quote]
That makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with your previous answers. If the right to violently rebel against a tyrannical regime lies within an individual, and if he has the right to request and accept allies, than the wars are justified through his circumstances alone.
It seems to me you’re forced to retreat, perhaps redefining the right to violent rebellion as some sort of right birthed from consensus. A national-collective right.[/quote]
He certainly has the right to rebel, but nobody else has the moral obligation to help him, especially not if involves the murder of countless innocent people and the outcome is less than certain.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
That makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with your previous answers. If the right to violently rebel against a tyrannical regime lies within an individual, and if he has the right to request and accept allies, than the wars are justified through his circumstances alone.
It seems to me you’re forced to retreat, perhaps redefining the right to violent rebellion as some sort of right birthed from consensus. A national-collective right.[/quote]
Something orion said ‘makes no sense, and doesn’t fit with’ his ‘previous answer’? Are you sure? His comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler seemed sound to me.
[/quote]
Link please, I seem to have missed that post.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Twas my thought precisely. This whole every man an island deal is just comprehensively unworkable once the book closes. I do stand by what I said though. Lifty believes this because he wants the world to be a better place. I’m serious and there is a certain nobility in that.[/quote]
The freedom of association implies the right to not have associations forced upon people and that government should respect the boundaries of private property.
Even if every Iraqi wanted the US military to intervene it is still immoral because it does not respect my wishes to not be robbed at gunpoint to carry it out. And even still murder by a military force is not some special case thats gets absolved just because a war was declared. Murder with fighter jets is still murder.
[quote]orion wrote:
He certainly has the right to rebel, but nobody else has the moral obligation to help him, especially not if involves the murder of countless innocent people and the outcome is less than certain.
[/quote]
Then the right to rebel isn’t an indiviual right? It’s now caveated by collective considerations? And it doesn’t matter if the allies helping him feel a moral obligation or not. The justification is met through his ‘individual’ right to violent rebellion, taking allies as needed. You’re no longer against the actual war, you’re just against a sense of obligation.
So, how did you get from one solitary individual being able to wage violent rebellion–even in the face of collective consensus bending to the status quo-- and taking allies, to your above comment?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
He certainly has the right to rebel, but nobody else has the moral obligation to help him, especially not if involves the murder of countless innocent people and the outcome is less than certain.
[/quote]
Then the right to rebel isn’t an indiviual right? It’s now caveated by collective considerations? And it doesn’t matter if the allies helping him feel a moral obligation or not. The justification is met through his ‘individual’ right to violent rebellion, taking allies as needed. You’re no longer against the actual war, you’re just against a sense of obligation.
So, how did you get from one solitary individual being able to wage violent rebellion–even in the face of collective consensus bending to the status quo-- and taking allies, to your above comment?[/quote]
Because you are an individual too and someone else cannot simply draft you to support him?
I.e., you are responsible for your own actions, meaning, if and how you choose to help him.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
He certainly has the right to rebel, but nobody else has the moral obligation to help him, especially not if involves the murder of countless innocent people and the outcome is less than certain.
[/quote]
Then the right to rebel isn’t an indiviual right? It’s now caveated by collective considerations? And it doesn’t matter if the allies helping him feel a moral obligation or not. The justification is met through his ‘individual’ right to violent rebellion, taking allies as needed. You’re no longer against the actual war, you’re just against a sense of obligation.
So, how did you get from one solitary individual being able to wage violent rebellion–even in the face of collective consensus bending to the status quo-- and taking allies, to your above comment?[/quote]
Because you are an individual too and someone else cannot simply draft you to support him?
I.e., you are responsible for your own actions, meaning, if and how you choose to help him. [/quote]
I’m not sure how the draft fits into this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
He certainly has the right to rebel, but nobody else has the moral obligation to help him, especially not if involves the murder of countless innocent people and the outcome is less than certain.
[/quote]
Then the right to rebel isn’t an indiviual right? It’s now caveated by collective considerations? And it doesn’t matter if the allies helping him feel a moral obligation or not. The justification is met through his ‘individual’ right to violent rebellion, taking allies as needed. You’re no longer against the actual war, you’re just against a sense of obligation.
So, how did you get from one solitary individual being able to wage violent rebellion–even in the face of collective consensus bending to the status quo-- and taking allies, to your above comment?[/quote]
Because you are an individual too and someone else cannot simply draft you to support him?
I.e., you are responsible for your own actions, meaning, if and how you choose to help him. [/quote]
I’m not sure how the draft fits into this.[/quote]
YOU cannot be forced to help someone else who chooses to rebel.
If you do it anyway, you are responsible for that decision.
YOU cannot be compelled to take up arms for someone elses sake.