Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:15:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1544 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > The Villains are part of The People. How can you tell one from the other?
> >
> > Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're
> > doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting.
>
> OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her
> lifestyle.
And they'd be right.
> PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but
> cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e.,
> "I'm right because I think I am, so you must be wrong").
No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are
both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are
bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if I disagree
with them) and those who do not are crazy (one way or another).
> Even someone who is committing a crime in front of me may not think of
> himself as a villain;
And he may not be one. Crimes have nothing to do with right and wrong or good
and bad.
> take Argentina, where people had to steal food in Xmas. Technically,
> they were stealing, in front of armed officers. So a
> crime may be "not seen" as a crime.
A crime is a violation of law. But not bad or wicked or evil.
> The same applies to the shooting situation. Assuming someone ill can take
> possession of a gun, and starts shooting at you, should you kill that person?
There may or may not be better choices. I would not question the morality of
returning fire.
> Villainry (I dunno if the word exists, just pretend it does) is relative.
I think we agree.
> > So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that • WWII
> > happened because Germany was trying to break into Polish, French, or
> > Austrian market economies. They wanted to take their stuff (foremost of
> > which (I guess) was productive capacity). It was simple thuggery. How has • the
> > EC changed that?
>
> Different context: after the depression, Germany was faced with many trade
> barriers lifted by other states, and was suffering with it. Since they had
> no negotial power, the response was war.
And that couldn't happen again? Obviously the EU won't permit those kinds of
trade barriers, but what about those outside the EU? There are borders.
> The EC (now EU) meant "no barriers". In fact, it means no tariffs when
> passing borders (and no passports within Schengen Space), making the goods
> produced in "A" more competitive with those produced in "B".
I didn't follow the whole thread, but then why are LEGO sets different prices
in different EC nations?
> One of the most important things about the EU is idealistic: the old
> nationalisms were put to death for the sake of the "european conscience".
So now you can be nationalistic about all of Europe. :-)
> "My country is no longer better than yours, we are now stronger together" -
> no competition, cooperation for the greater good.
The greater good, as long as your economy is strong enough to join and you play
by all the rules and so on and so forth.
> I like that idea. Who
> knows, if one day we can convince the Brits to feel "Europeans from
> Britain"... ;-) If that is possible, we can then walk towards the Earth
> becoming *one* country. That old dream of all emperors, maybe possible
> without bloodshed after all - but then again, that is purely a dream for now.
I'm hoping that the notion of countries will become outmoded long before that
can happen. I guess we'll see.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) :-) That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one. (...) They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails, but heck, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of acceptable behaviour here. (...) It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e., "I'm right because I (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 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
|
|
|
|
