Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:59:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
522 times
|
| |
|
|
> How open is Germany to immigration and fair treatment of those newcommers?
Well, open enough for my taste, given the fact there are very few other
countries which have that many people per square mile. As far as fair
treatment is concerned, I think there is two answers:
- On one side, there is the official side of Germany, where
I think they are treated as fair as possible.
- Then there is the Neo-Nazi side of Germany, which obviously
makes Germany less safe a place for foreigners than I wish
it should be. And yes, some have even be killed without arms,
but I suspect it would be worse with more arms ...
> > Quite regularly, kids get shot in the US at school.
>
> I think you need to get out more. Is this really a widely spread lie in
> Europe? Or is it that you have a ridiculous notion of "quite regularly?"
OK, maybe I used the term "quite regularly" a bit too loosely here. I hear
of it every one or two years. But I don't think I am hearing lies ...
> > > > And isn't it true that conflicting rights must
> > > > always be carefully balanced?
> > >
> > > I don't think there is any such thing as conflicting rights.
> >
> > So you think that exercising one's rights never limits the rights of
> > others?
>
> That's correct.
Let me try a very simple example: Presumably you accept there is a right to
live. If so, ANYTHING that poses a risk one someone else's life should be
banned. Obviously, that is not very realistic, because just about anything
we do implies that risk. To balance the right to DO something with one's
life, you have to accept certain risks to people's lifes. No conflicting
rights? That's too simplistic ...
> > That the rights we have and use should not be limited by the rights of
> > others?
>
> Not that they shouldn't be, but that they -- by definition, can not be.
>
> > That there is no priority of some rights over others?
>
> If you wish to prioritize your rights, that's fine. I prefer absolute
> ones.
It's not that I WANT. We HAVE TO balance, and sometimes prioritize -- see
example above.
> > Getting back to the original topic: You don't think that the Middle East
> > conflict is all about conflicting rights of Israelis vs. Palestines?
>
> Not at all. To whatever extent it is rights based at all, I think it is about
> members of each group trampling on the rights of members of the other. But
> mostly it seems like neither side even wants to get along. Since both sides
> want to continue fighting, why not let them?
This certainly has some truth to it.
> > I firmly believe, that no one has the right to define good and bad.
>
> And I firmly believe that each of us has that right. Not just that right, but
> in fact a responsibility to try and do so. I have revised my notion of good
> and bad all my life.
But still you cannot assume it is valid for ALL people, can you?
> > This always has to be a consensus of society.
>
> No. Bad is bad even if lots of people don't know that it is. We once had a
> majority that allowed those of African decent to be enslaved by those of
> European decent. That was bad even then.
Maybe it was bad. To judge with today's value system is historically
inadequate, though.
> The majority of Germans once supported their leader in the murder millions
> of people. That was bad even then.
Yes, and without any doubt. This was in a value system almost identical to
today's, and it was and is bad with respect to whatever sensible value
system you may want to apply.
> If you believe that good and evil are determined by consensus, then you accept
> that those attrocities were once good things and only since those times have
> they become evil. I reject that.
I think I understand your concern. Consensus has to be a bit broader than
just one country, it seems. Actually, some of the US' questionable track
record seems to stem from the fact that they claim to have the only
acceptable definition of good and bad. And maybe the fact that their
definition internally is different from their definition used in foreign
affairs.
> > Now, there is no real worldwide society, which
> > makes things harder ... sometimes, it seems, not for the US, because they of
> > course know what is good and bad, and consequently ignore even the minimum
> > consensus of worldwide legislation. This of course makes it hard to stand up
> > against "international terrorism", without losing international credibility.
> > But then, what does a superpower need credibility for ...
>
> I don't support some of what people are discussing in this war on terrorism
> thing -- though our bombing in Afghanistan has seemed fairly measured thus
> far.
> But that doesn't mean I think we should wait for world consensus...nothing
> would ever get done.
Correct, I fear.
> How would we ever convince evil people that we should eradicate evil?
Not at all, of course. Unless you are willing to start with the dark side of
the US themselves ...
:wq
Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) What must a person of Turkish descent whose family has lived in Germany for three generations do to seek citizenship? (...) Actually, this is a tricky situation because ultimately I think that rights are just a notion. But I spend the majority (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well actually, I would have argued that we ought to have the right to drive. But since Richard pointed out that we do, the point is rather moot. (...) First of all, I don't know that it is. I just spent about a half hour trying to find those (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
