Close USA borders to Arab world?

That's not quite true.

The majority of religious teaching (being Christian, and Muslim) teach monotheism which is partly what you've said.

However, the major religious groups teach understanding, and tolerance: I'm sure someone more familiar with the Quran (sp?) or the bible will be able to help out here.

Fundamentalism is a hijacked word. Another example of the media twisting knowledge and installing fear into the population at large.

Violende associated with a particular set of beliefs is down to the individual albeit some individuals are manipulated to a very large degree. Such an individual should not be denoted 'fundamental' simply because the actions the individual perpertrate are nowhere close to being inline with the faith the individual claims to believe in.

I object to religious groups. Organisations that hold huge power over large numbers of people. It seems to me that this is structure designed to extract money from the weakest and poorest. Even if it's not about money: it's about power induced through fear over another human being. Which I cannot accept as moral behaviour.

I can only presume that the religious bodies, and NOT the religion per se which are at the centre of all this trouble.

[rant over]

Yip, the CoE is very worried at the moment because they are not getting people through the door. Which proves that it's not about the faith, but the money.

I just don't like how religious persons always try and "convert" me or preach to me how they are more holy than I am. It really irritates me because you just get the impression, whether it's right or not, that they believe themselves superior.

The only religious group I respect are the buddhists. A lot of good ideologies there :thumb:

It depends, I guess, on how you are being 'preached' to.

As far as I am aware Jesus, Mohammed and a whole host of others never overtly forced religion down anyone's throat.

If you didn't want to know; they didn't bother.

So those who try to ram it down your throat do not understand the faith in which they profess to be converting you to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

...and that's the sad thing.
Most religion's teach that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This breeds misunderstanding and hatred for others, and that is pathetic.

It's all about respect, and not enough people respect others. :(

---

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.

---

I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

---

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

---

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

---

If you accept that what the American government is doing is wrong, then there's no point in saying the others are doing nothing to stop it. Even if the others are not doing anything, whatever the US government is doing is still wrong and still unjustified.

When you talk of responsibilities, you must also take into account the dominance of the various nations on the international scale. It's evident from the Iraq fiasco that the US and the UK governments don't give a hoot to the UNO which could be viewed as a democratic platform. Since they don't care about this democratic platform, there is no reason to believe their cry of freedom is motivated by noble intentions. Also their nuisance value would exceed any other singular nation. The only way to prevent the US from spreading its own version of freedom is to amass equal or more might, in all fields. Since this conflict is multi-faceted, you will find that those nations who are politically opposed to the Iraq invasion are economically with the US because they can't afford to lose their share of the loot. Those nations who are not going to profit from the Iraq invasion don't have the military and political might to stand up against the US invasion.

You can see from the failures of the Cancun and similar summits that the third world countries are forming a front against the developed nations, at least economically. If that succeeds, they can together throw off the dependency on the developed nations and have the courage to openly and actively oppose their aggressions and other moves which hurt the developing nations.

In the end, it's all merely a power struggle, to create, increase and maintain dominance on the world's resources. The US government cares as much about the well-being of a common Iraqi person as I care about Bush's well-being.

In fact, I don't see how Bush could be different in essence from any other dictator, for e.g. Hitler. As the US president he can manipulate almost anything, at least within the US. He can paint his own picture of events in the media, he can force his own versions of decisions and policies down people's throats, so effectively he doesn't have any opposition. As for slaughtering millions of people, he is doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan and Iraq. With four more years, we can expect him to surpass Hitler in Cyria, Iran and North Korea.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

---

Pooh. This is just like saying we don't like the presidency system in the US and want to replace it with a parliamentary system. So we invade the US, scrap the senate, put Bush and the senators behind bars and prosecute them, and then hold elections for the parliament.

First off, the US government has no business deciding how other countries should be run, just like you wouldn't want to listen to me if I told you to stop beating your wife. And if you are going to give me any bulls hit about the UN not doing anything, it's similar to this: I think that my neighbour doesn't treat his son good. (Note: I think so;)). I approach the police, they investigate him and find nothing wrong or worth taking action. Since I am unhappy with their conclusion, I take the law in my own hands, invade my neighbour's house and whack him.

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

---

That's pretty much what Bush did. Invaded Iraq with the US forces and toppled the Saddam government and then put his own government to power.

How about removing Bush from the US presidency and putting Clinton back there? I suppose you wouldn't object to it, as long as the invading forces were powerful enough to quash all your defences and stick guns your your heads? OK not literally stick their guns to your heads but maybe parade the streets day and night, bomb houses and in general simply create an atmosphere of terror and suppression.

.

Honeybee,

That's all nice and liberal . . .and some people may even be convinced by this postulating. But not me.

If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Sitting on your hands on the fence pointing fingers is an appalling state to be in. Yes, one that I have been guilty of in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

---

You are right. The US has no right to decide what form of government should rule and where. I dissagree that this should be argued in the UN. The UN is a complete failure. Resolutions are passed based on the size of a countrys pocket book. If Pakistan had .0000001% of the GDP of the US or any other European country, India would have so many goddam sanctions and resolutions against them that they would never make it out of the 3rd world class. The UN is just another unneeded level of NON-Elected politicians trying to steal more of the worlds cash. It should be disbanded. I know the president of my country and the rest of the leaders of the world know how to use a telephone. If something needs resolved that is important enough to require the worlds attention. Pick up the freaking phone and put it on conference call mode.

Quote:

---

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.
.

---

Again, How does an un-elected world body somehow become the world's police force. They have no right to do anything. I don't know about your country but In mine we elect our sherifs/judges and they enforce the law for us. No country should be held accountable by the UN, Including Pre-war Iraq and the US. All the UN has done is hurt relationships between countries that once got along fine by muddying up the waters with another layer of political bullsheit.

And to the topic(old) of course the US borders should not be closed to any one entering the country legally. Contrary to popular belief. The US is not facing a job loss problem. We just have too may jerry springer candidates not willing to work for a living. Reminds me of cousin Eddy on nat'l lampoons. "He's holding out for a management position". Send us some people who are worth a damn. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Honeybee,
If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

---

I agree, 'It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Honeybee,

That's all nice and liberal . . .and some people may even be convinced by this postulating. But not me.

If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Sitting on your hands on the fence pointing fingers is an appalling state to be in. Yes, one that I have been guilty of in the past.

---

I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.
No matter what the reason a man must never hit a woman and if I ever see it I will stop it because it is wrong

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong. And as you hold so dear to the UN, does it not go against human rights to have your life taken from you because your so called "leader" is having a bad day. At least now Iraq is controlled by Iraqis :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong.

---

Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xcoder

Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)

---

A lot can change in 20 years. Enemy becomes friend, friend becomes enemy.
It is nothing to do with then, it is what's happening now. Look at Germany as a prime example. Back then the Berlin wall split the company so effectively. Now it is as though it never actually existed, which is nice to see. :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

---

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car, I would be specially cautious about my own life when I knew the driver of the car intends to continue full speed and run over anything and anyone in his way. Or how about he takes the child to a remote alley and rams him down, where nobody can come help him?

Even if it were an accident, it's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. It's stupid to expect a bystander to risk his life and save the child, as if it's his duty or liability. Excuse me, don't blame me for your stupidity. It's you who is responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

Isn't that precisely why England and France actually tried to legitimize Hitler's early advances in Europe? Becuase it wasn't worth the effort for them to risk a war for what Hitler was doing. That doesn't justify Hitler's actions. That's a pathetic argument, typically American where you can kill yourself by smoking and sue the cigarette manufacturers for it.

How about you speed down a road and are stopped at the next intersection by a traffic cop for a speed violation and you present your case as: "well, nobody stopped me while speeding on this patch of road!"?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.

---

Good example, but then again if you had seen a squad car parked a few feet/metres down the road, you would have probably gone to the car and asked the cops inside to handle the situation, rather than doing it yourself. And what if the large bloke is replaced with a few armed mobsters trying to kill someone, who aren't concerned who else gets killed? I doubt you would intervene. And it would be stupid too.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car. It's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. Excuse me, don't blame me for your sins. You are responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

---

You would happily watch a car mow down a child even though you might have saved that child's life! :eek2:
Could you live with yourself, watching that child being killed and knowing that you may not have been able to save him, but you didn't even bother to try?
That is unbelievable. I would of course try to push the child out of the way, it would be instinctive, added to which my chance of survival would be much better than a small child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Good example, but then again if you had seen a squad car parked a few feet/metres down the road, you would have probably gone to the car and asked the cops inside to handle the situation, rather than doing it yourself. And what if the large bloke is replaced with a few armed mobsters trying to kill someone, who aren't concerned who else gets killed? I doubt you would intervene. And it would be stupid too.

.

---

What if? What if?
There was no police around, and if there were he wouldn't have been stupid enough to beat his girlfriend in front of them
This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

You are just trying to justify pacifism and if nobody cared about anyone else there would be no family or friends.
Here is a what if for you

You are in a bar and a friend or family member is getting pummeled...from your previous posts it sounds like you would stand and watch?? :ehh:

An interesting ethical issue has been raised here. Must you take action to save somebody?

It seems rational to me that a person is required to do no evil, but is not required to do good.

I agree with laws against crime, but would object to any law requiring me to be a good Samaritan. I have the right to choose when I risk my time, effort, money, or life. I also have the right to dispise and have no dealings with somebody who would not save a life at hardly any cost to himself, even though I would vote against any law to punish him for his inaction.

Take the situation of somebody drowning. If it is an infant in three feeet of water in a swimming pool, I would surely attempt to save him/her, and expect that most people would. Some wet clothes are a small price to pay for a life. If the infant was in the raging white water of the Colorado river, I would not attempt a rescue (although in my teens I would have at least thought about helping). If was a 300 pound adult in the white water, I would not think about taking any action other than throwing in a life jacket if I had one. As far as I am concerned, each individual has the right to draw his own line between these two extremes.

Why should I judge the individual who did not try to rescue the child in the pool? Maybe he/she had a phobia about water. Maybe she/he did not notice the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

---

No...you're all still using knives... *** ? Stabbing someone so they bleed to death and experience minutes worth of heart palpitations and body shakes is so much more humane that shootin them in the head right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

What if? What if?
You are in a bar and a friend or family member is getting pummeled...from your previous posts it sounds like you would stand and watch?? :ehh:

---

He was referring to a stranger ... and nine times out of ten the guy deserved to be pummeled which is why nine times out of ten someone decides to pummel someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

---

It's pretty rare in the US if you factor in how many people live here.

I believe If someone is in a life threatening situation and you can help them you should. That's just a personal belief, I don't have the right to judge someone who dosn't share that belief. Neither does the other person. We do however, have the right to think that the other person is a bag of sheit. What comes around goes around, Someday you migh need help in a crappy situation. Wouldn't it suck if everyone around you sat and watched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

He was referring to a stranger ... and nine times out of ten the guy deserved to be pummeled which is why nine times out of ten someone decides to pummel someone.

---

It would seem that the only one who deserves to be pummeled is someone who goes around pummeling.
All others are only deserving of being ignored, arrested, or thrown out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

It would seem that the only one who deserves to be pummeled is someone who goes around pummeling.
All others are only deserving of being ignored, arrested, or thrown out.

---

Obviously if the person had a history of pummeling. But what about the guy that sits at the end of the bar making lewd comments at your wife or girlfriend all night. I think you'll find most bar scenes are full of such source ignition. Those types don't leave voluntarily and they usually are aggressive.

Sorry if I offended anyone in this thread. Wasn't my intention :thumb:

Need to ask you guys from the US a question though. A few friends and I are going to Orlando in July for a holiday (a mate is getting married in Disney :sick: ) but we are a bit concerned about the "nightlife" in the US. What's it like over there?
Where are the best kind of places to go (clubs/bars/pubs.....u even have pubs?)?
Is it relatively safe?

Again, not trying to be nasty or anything, just wanna scope out the best placs to pick up some nice local girls :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

No...you're all still using knives... *** ? Stabbing someone so they bleed to death and experience minutes worth of heart palpitations and body shakes is so much more humane that shootin them in the head right?

---

Whenever i stab someone i quickly remove their heart to make it as painless as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

No...you're all still using knives... *** ? Stabbing someone so they bleed to death and experience minutes worth of heart palpitations and body shakes is so much more humane that shootin them in the head right?

---

Neither are humane, because no person has the right to take another's life.

The problem over here, which your country has sorted out, is our judicial system. All they'd get over here is a £500 fine and 10 hours community service!!
***! Chuck them in jail and throw away the key! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Sorry if I offended anyone in this thread. Wasn't my intention :thumb:

Need to ask you guys from the US a question though. A few friends and I are going to Orlando in July for a holiday (a mate is getting married in Disney :sick: ) but we are a bit concerned about the "nightlife" in the US. What's it like over there?
Where are the best kind of places to go (clubs/bars/pubs.....u even have pubs?)?
Is it relatively safe?

Again, not trying to be nasty or anything, just wanna scope out the best placs to pick up some nice local girls :p

---

Orlando is safe ... the biggest category of crime there is larceny - crimes against tourists because they are a big target for criminals - just as in any popular tourist destination. You're most likely to get robbed while you leave something unattended - there are few actual muggings in Orlando. Most reported crime is usually drug possession - or intent to sell. To point, there were only 17 murders in Orlando for 2004 for a city of 185,000. I don't believe any of the victims were tourists.

As far as getting shot in a club - that would be the furthest removed crime to worry about - especially in Orlando.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Most reported crime is usually drug possession - or intent to sell.

---

Sounds like a good holiday spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car, I would be specially cautious about my own life when I knew the driver of the car intends to continue full speed and run over anything and anyone in his way. Or how about he takes the child to a remote alley and rams him down, where nobody can come help him?

Even if it were an accident, it's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. It's stupid to expect a bystander to risk his life and save the child, as if it's his duty or liability. Excuse me, don't blame me for your stupidity. It's you who is responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

Isn't that precisely why England and France actually tried to legitimize Hitler's early advances in Europe? Becuase it wasn't worth the effort for them to risk a war for what Hitler was doing. That doesn't justify Hitler's actions. That's a pathetic argument, typically American where you can kill yourself by smoking and sue the cigarette manufacturers for it.

How about you speed down a road and are stopped at the next intersection by a traffic cop for a speed violation and you present your case as: "well, nobody stopped me while speeding on this patch of road!"?

.

---

Oh dear. This might take a bit of time. I'll do it in paragraphs . . .

(i)+(ii) I think it's a good analogy. It might not fit into your sensibilities but I think that it is not good enough just to say 'It's no good' and then ignore it. We can tell, from your post here, that part of your makeup is not to risk your life for someone elses - we'll come to that bit a little later . . .

(iii) I love this stuff. Do you run 'Claims Direct' or something. Assigning liabillity wherever you can. However: I'm sure the law is with you on this. It would not be your fault. You would not be to blame. The fact that a child's parents blinked for that split second that the child bolted boils down to parental responsibility and liability. If you think that it's stupid for a bystander to risk his life for anothers what about all the so called 'Hero' stories when ordinary people have done exactly that? Would you call them stupid? What about people who take careers that commit them to risk their lives for anothers (RNLI, Mountain Rescue) Often there is no blame; it is often a result of freak circumstances that require the services of such organisations. Are they stupid? Is it ridiculous that they should risk their lives? When an off-duty policemen saves your bacon because he feels 'he is doing the right thing' will you call him stupid? He certainly will not be commited to helping you because he is off duty.

(iv) In the war against Hitler normal people stood up and were counted. They wanted to stop this guy. They were risking their lives so you could have yours today. I can't believe you said that.

(v) I have to be honest I don't see how you got to that point - so I will need clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guv

An interesting ethical issue has been raised here. Must you take action to save somebody?

It seems rational to me that a person is required to do no evil, but is not required to do good.

I agree with laws against crime, but would object to any law requiring me to be a good Samaritan. I have the right to choose when I risk my time, effort, money, or life. I also have the right to dispise and have no dealings with somebody who would not save a life at hardly any cost to himself, even though I would vote against any law to punish him for his inaction.

Take the situation of somebody drowning. If it is an infant in three feeet of water in a swimming pool, I would surely attempt to save him/her, and expect that most people would. Some wet clothes are a small price to pay for a life. If the infant was in the raging white water of the Colorado river, I would not attempt a rescue (although in my teens I would have at least thought about helping). If was a 300 pound adult in the white water, I would not think about taking any action other than throwing in a life jacket if I had one. As far as I am concerned, each individual has the right to draw his own line between these two extremes.

Why should I judge the individual who did not try to rescue the child in the pool? Maybe he/she had a phobia about water. Maybe she/he did not notice the child.

---

If you knew that that person was a fully qualified water life-saver would you judge him then?

Each individual does have to right to choose his own actions. And it is by these actions that the individual chooses to do that the individual will be judged by the rest of society. If it is against the law then you will be forcibly brought before a court. Otherwise, you will be judged by the moral standing of the society in which you live. If you spread non-lethal disease through sex it is not a crime of GBH (in the UK) Does this make it morally right? I don't think so. The test of morality can NEVER be the legal system.

It is not enough, in a social society, to just be 'not-evil' I believe there are social responsibilities on all of us - whether you like it or not.

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

---

:afrog:
Here in the USA, most state has those laws all so. But they do not use them very often, unless a death is involved.

Note for a person here to have a Counseled Weapons Permit, you have to take a class. In that class you learn what it takes to use deadly force. This is where it gets complicated. I can put myself into anyone’s shoe. If I see someone being beating up, I can assume that I am them, if I feel that I am threatened with death then I can save that person by using deadly force against the person beating them! If I feel like my life is threaten or anyone else’s life is threatened, I can use deadly force.
So if I have a CWP or I do not and watch some one beating to death, I can be charge with not helping that person.
:ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

If you knew that that person was a fully qualified water life-saver would you judge him then?

Each individual does have to right to choose his own actions. And it is by these actions that the individual chooses to do that the individual will be judged by the rest of society. If it is against the law then you will be forcibly brought before a court. Otherwise, you will be judged by the moral standing of the society in which you live. If you spread non-lethal disease through sex it is not a crime of GBH (in the UK) Does this make it morally right? I don't think so. The test of morality can NEVER be the legal system.

It is not enough, in a social society, to just be 'not-evil' I believe there are social responsibilities on all of us - whether you like it or not.

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

---

First off, let me thank Guv for presenting a better case of the drowning incident.

Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver.

The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop.

About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon.

About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me.

.

excellent point honeybee, I am not responsible for the Iraq situation, sure I could go and protest but why bother its not my fault. Let em burn.

As long as ive got food and shelter who cares about anyone else.

Also, this post isn't about the Iraq invasion, stop making every post in world events about Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

First off, let me thank Guv for presenting a better case of the drowning incident.

Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver.

The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop.

About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon.

About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me.

.

---

"Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver."

Does this means that you would judge the situation differently then? Under this analogy what you are saying is: there is a child drowning, I know that person x is not qualified and is incompetent at any rescue skills - I will let the person rescue the child because I don't care about the outcome. This is contrary to what you've already said. It will cost you nothing to prevent x from attempting what is likely to kill both the child and x.



"The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop".
So you've let arguments of morality and your inaction, now, is based entirely on fear? I'm sure you didn't mean to imply this.

"About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon."
I think Mudfish has pointed out that the US has similar laws.

"About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me."
Firstly in the 'saving another's life' analogy you wouldn't have time to think. Help me God if I'm anywhere near you in a crisis. It would be all over before you've reasoned through it. The final part of this paragraph 'it's not my fault' so I'm not going to do anything is what I think is wrong with the world - in particular the West - today. My generation (30ish) did not bring about the effects of Global Warming. It was my father, and his father's generation. They are alive today; so should I let them sort it out? I don't think so! I will probably be dead before major climatic events happen (around 50yrs+) so it won't affect me either. Should I do nothing? I think not.

You reason for selfishness and nothing more. And that's appalling in this modern age.

Mudfish said:

Quote:

---

Here in the USA, most states have those laws.

---

But I believe Mudfish those laws still only apply to off-duty emeregency personel including law enforcement officers, emergency first-responders, etc. They can be held accountable for not attempting to saving lives. You might have to clarify what laws you're talking about... because that would be a scary law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Mudfish said:


But I believe Mudfish those laws still only apply to off-duty emeregency personel including law enforcement officers, emergency first-responders, etc. They can be held accountable for not attempting to saving lives. You might have to clarify what laws you're talking about... because that would be a scary law.

---

Not that scary, really. You would need to have the mind (mens rea) and the act (actus rea) in order to commit the crime,

For instance it would need to be proved that you didn't act because although you have the mind, you were not capable of the act.

In Honeybee's case the argument is 'I will never have the mind' unless it is useful; the act will never happen.

I argue that it is a moral responsibility for ALL to help where and when they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mudfish

:afrog:
Here in the USA, most state has those laws all so. But they do not use them very often, unless a death is involved.

---

First disclaimer
Second one: should say they hardly ever use the law would be more like it!
I can think of one case I read about in NY! Some one did nothing during a murder, was a few years back and they could have been like nemaroller said!
I do not think my state has those laws, and if they do they sure do not use them! It would be so hard to prove a case like that!

kulrom - your description of Iraq would have been more accurate a year ago. A lot has changed, including the growing (and effective) Iraqi National Guard. And the US didn't install the government, the Iraqi people voted for it. The only one complaining is the same group that boycotted the election - now they're saying - we still want to be part of the government.(?!?!?)

Quote:

---

The only one complaining is the same group that boycotted the election - now they're saying - we still want to be part of the government.(?!?!?)

---

Are they actually complaining now? Despite the boycott by Shiites, didnt the Shiite party still win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

Are they actually complaining now? Despite the boycott by Shiites, didnt the Shiite party still win?

---

I think it was the Sunny(sp?) that boycotted the election!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mudfish

I think it was the Sunny(sp?) that boycotted the election!

---

I dont really remember. :blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

I dont really remember. :blush:

---

:blush: :blush:
I know I did not spell it right!
:afrog:
But I can spell "if" right!
:D

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

---

They'll get their chance to vote in the next election. Still enough Sunni Muslims were elected to maintain checks and balances on the Shia or Kurds. They'll all have to figure out how to work with each other or end up like the US Congress :D. The same crap happens in the US. There are always people complaining about the government and half of them didn't even make it to the polls. I say "right on" to the Iraqi people. They had a higher percentage turn out at the polls than the US has had in the last 100+ years. The part that gets me is people calling it a US installed government. What a load of BS. Most of the US Backed candidates lost and will not be part of the government.

Congrats to the people in Lebanon as well. It takes a lot of ballz to pull of what they're pulling off.

Quote:

---

They had a higher percentage turn out at the polls than the US has had in the last 100+ years.

---

And under the threat of snipers and car bombs too no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

---

What did they change their tune to? I can't hear anything different over the increase in attacks that has occured following the election.

This is still a dicey affair, and the ultimate result is yet uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What did they change their tune to? I can't hear anything different over the increase in attacks that has occured following the election.

This is still a dicey affair, and the ultimate result is yet uncertain.

---

I can't remember the exact quote by the Sunni "leader", but it was basically "we didn't mean we wanted to be left out altogether, just to boycott the election". It was pretty comical.

Or to put it another way:

"We want the power, and we'll get it...one way or another."

Let's not bring lebanon into this, because quite frankly, americans turn a blind eye to labanon's history. Not that the lebanese remember their own history either, or who helped stop them from killing themselves (syria).

But just for the record, here's a basic recap of the story:
Christians governed lebanon although muslims numbers increased greatly throughout the years. Muslims became pissed off at the present power situation and a civil war began. Obviously, israel has to put its nose in all arab affairs claiming that it's trying to stop terrorist attacks from lebanon by occupying a large area in lebanon and stopping food and water from entering lebanon. The largest christian sect (pro-syrians) seeked military aid from Syria to fight the left muslims. Syria comes in fighting the muslims, but later on fights all sides in order to stop the civil war. Nontheless, where there's israeli forces, americans aren't too far behind, and somehow the french got in there. By the end, israel is occupying a part of lebanon calling it the "Security Zone", while the americans and french leave the land and appoint Syria to maintain the peace. A new government is formed allowing more muslims into power, but with a pro-syrian christian president. Just lately, some rediculous bombing occurs that kills the old pro-syrian president who became anti-syrian a few months ago. Obviously, the lebanese blame Syria for the bombing but it just seems so farfetched that the syrian government would assassinate Harriri at a time like this. The american government is quick to point fingers, without knowing anything as usual, at the syrian government and calls syria to withdraw its troops from lebanon (calling it an occupation). The funny thing is, who appointed syria to stay in lebanon? If you already forgot, it was the US-of-A.

IMO, it's best that syria has no influence in lebanese affairs because I'd love to see lebanon throw itself back into a civil war. Nevertheless, dumb politicians who don't know anything about the arab world need to stay away from that mess. The arabs don't want westerners to "help" them, because quite frankly, westerners haven't helped anyone. Just a reminder that none of these countries have recovered after American invasion: Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Except canada, because Canada helps everyone :)!

I think we should let them come over , but they have to leave their religion and terrosim behind.
It's really the only way for us all to get along.And if anyone try's to do anything have them prosecuted.

This thread was OLD before I even joined this forum. Amazing...and yet....relevant?