Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen I get this kind of question I can start taking one item at a time, but a better way is to firstly find the criteria for what's right and what's not. Then I can take one item at a time and use the criteria to deide what's right and what's not. Okay?
Do these groups have justification to armed rebellion against their oppressors?
Native Americans vs the governments of any or all of the American governments (USA, Canada, Mexico, El Salvador, Chile, etc)
Irish vs North Irish?
Palestinians vs Israel?
Kurds vs Turkey?
Blacks vs USA?
People of Mexican descent in southern US?
Quebec vs Canada?
...[text shortened]... Coalition in Iraq? How about foreign Arabs or Muslims?
"Moors" vs Spain?
Etc...add your own.
If we have a scenario like this: One country invades another and after a wile the people of the occupant area want their land back and rule it themselves.
Then the criteria might be:
(1) How long time was it since the occupation began?
(2) How is the people treated now? Master race, slave race? Level of violence included?
(3) Are they in peace with eachother or is it a steady conflict between the two peoples?
(4) What happens if the occupation stops, will the occupying people move back to where they came, or will they stay?
(5) Is democracy important issue? If the occupying people is not democratic, and the occupied people was, or the other way around, does it matter? What about if both countries was not democratic before?
(6) Is it about religion, military strategy, oil or other resources, humanitary reasons, or just expanding the territory?
Perhaps there are more criteria than these, but I think they are the most important ones.
When we've decided the criteria, then we can decide what occupations is good, and what is not.
Originally posted by deriver69Considering he was never voted into office (was never even elected as leader of his own party), I would say yes. He was a completely incompetent chancellor, (this was the idiot who sold our gold reserves when gold prices were at an all-time low) at a time when being a succesful chancellor should have been easy, given the economic climate .He is completely out of his depth as leader of this country,and you can't trust a man who doesn't know how to smile. Look Gordon, it' easy. 😀
Is armed rebellion right for us english oppressed under our Scottish ruler?
Originally posted by FabianFnasThose criteria are what I am trying to determine!
When I get this kind of question I can start taking one item at a time, but a better way is to firstly find the criteria for what's right and what's not. Then I can take one item at a time and use the criteria to deide what's right and what's not. Okay?
If we have a scenario like this: One country invades another and after a wile the people of the occu ...[text shortened]... n we've decided the criteria, then we can decide what occupations is good, and what is not.
Originally posted by acb123There again he did want to be leader for so long, and he looks a little bit like someone I work with. Maybe he ought to be queen, have the leadership role without actually doing any law making.
Considering he was never voted into office (was never even elected as leader of his own party), I would say yes. He was a completely incompetent chancellor, (this was the idiot who sold our gold reserves when gold prices were at an all-time low) at a time when being a succesful chancellor should have been easy, given the economic climate .He is completely out ...[text shortened]... country,and you can't trust a man who doesn't know how to smile. Look Gordon, it' easy. 😀
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe agree that critieria are important.
Those criteria are what I am trying to determine!
There are two ways to find these criteria.
By defining criteria out of what people think in all the cases.
And by constructing criteria first and see what cases gives a yes and what cases gives a no according to the criteria.
The third way might be to go from one to the other and back again, in an iterative process.
I usually use the second alternative.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo...
We agree that critieria are important.
There are two ways to find these criteria.
By defining criteria out of what people think in all the cases.
And by constructing criteria first and see what cases gives a yes and what cases gives a no according to the criteria.
The third way might be to go from one to the other and back again, in an iterative process.
I usually use the second alternative.
Since you define criteria first...
What are your criteria?
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoNot sure why everyone in our police state seems to moan about the lack of police. Maybe in our police state we are just not satisfied with all the men in uniform and just want more, just like wealthy people who are never satisfied with the amount of money they have.
Just because it is old doesn't mean it is better.
Yeah, it it technically a democracy, but in matters of freedom it is almost a police-state.
Having not really seen much difference in our police state to other democracies does it mean the whole world is practically a police state?