12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

When / if the world becomes a society governed by Rule of Law, then you can use that argument.

In a context of a society marked by the Rule of Law (or rule of norms), the behaviour you described is unnacceptable, simply because you cannot have a functioning society that way.

International Law only came in effect in the last century after the second world war, and even then it was and is still broken by the major nations.

Also Addai:

 I'm talking about the people who take what isn't theirs because they consider themselves superior in some way.  

It's funny how you can condemn those that did this kind of stuff in history while your own country has done it also in recent years. Whether or not you support such action is particulary irrelevant as you can still come off as a big hypocrite.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:25 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@ Costin: I don't see how it makes her a hypocrite is she is against such actions or behavior by her own country. There are a number of Americans who condemn and continue to condemn current and past actions (especially the assimilation and murder of the Native Americans, or the enslavement of Africans, which are still major sources of friction within the society).



It is her personal beliefs and opinions that define her, not her nationality. I do not think such disagreement is irrelevant. If anything, it is more relevant.



Anyway, when it comes to historical figures, I do try, as much as possible, to take them in context of the time and society. Sure, in today's world, I would find the actions of many historical leaders and figures offensive, barbaric, and just plain wrong, at least from the pov of my own personal morality. But in the context of their time and place, it's a different story. And when taken into that context, it is much easier to feel admiration or interest for a particular figure.



I mean, Thomas Jefferson was a misygynist slave owning racist, yet in his time, he was a revolutionary and a very forward thinker, and is someone I admirem despite his faults. In his time such attitudes were the norm, and thus, removing him, or any other figure from history, from their historical context, takes away unecessarily from the character. Who was interesting to me.



The same can be said of many generals and leaders. In their time, aggressively taking over other people and their lands was a virtue to be exalted.

[Costin_Razvan]

I don't see how it makes her a hypocrite is she is against such actions or behavior by her own country. There are a number of Americans who condemn and continue to condemn current and past actions (especially the assimilation and murder of the Native Americans, or the enslavement of Africans, which are still major sources of friction within the society).


It is her personal beliefs and opinions that define her, not her nationality. I do not think such disagreement is irrelevant. If anything, it is more relevant.

America would not be the world's strongest and one of most prosperous nations on Earth if it hadn't done what it did in the past and what it still does. I personally have no issue with what they do but rather the bull**** belief that America upholds some moral values as a nation.

I personally would find it hard to believe the vast majority of Americans ( or hell people anywhere ) would be willing  for their country to lose it's wealth and power ( thus a massive decrease in living conditions ) just so that the nation is "moral". Hence the hypocrisy comment.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
International Law only came in effect in the last century after the second world war, and even then it was and is still broken by the major nations.

When I took a 4 level international law course, our professor made us memorize these words and said if you didn't write it on the exam, you would get an F:

"International public law does not exist":

He meant that there is no enforceable law on states today. Thus there is no Rule of Law. Just laws that are not enforceable, which for all intents and purposes, makes them non-existant.

The only semblance of a global authority is the USA, in its capacity as hegemon. I personally think that the hegemonic stability theory (Realist school of thought) is much more feasible in the forseable future, than a global rule of law (espoused by Neo-Liberals).
But of course that means that the hegemon can break the rules whenever it wants and punish those who aren't in its "club".

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:19 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Also Addai:

 I'm talking about the people who take what isn't theirs because they consider themselves superior in some way.  

It's funny how you can condemn those that did this kind of stuff in history while your own country has done it also in recent years. Whether or not you support such action is particulary irrelevant as you can still come off as a big hypocrite.

And you assume I approve just because I'm an American.  Whatever.

[Joy Divison]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

America would not be the world's strongest and one of most prosperous nations on Earth if it hadn't done what it did in the past and what it still does. I personally have no issue with what they do but rather the bull**** belief that America upholds some moral values as a nation.

I personally would find it hard to believe the vast majority of Americans ( or hell people anywhere ) would be willing  for their country to lose it's wealth and power ( thus a massive decrease in living conditions ) just so that the nation is "moral". Hence the hypocrisy comment.

True about America but does Addai or any American = America?

Most Americans, and dare I say any other citizens of a great power, would most certainly not voluntarily lose their power to be morally virtuous.  That doesn't mean we secretely approve of the immoral acts of our nation's foreign policy in order to reap the benefits.

As an American, I hate the self-righteousness our politicians and pundits espouse and rather they not use morality as a justification to act immorally, but I wonder if this is not the price we have to pay for living in a democratic society and having the rule of consent.  How do you convince citizens to go to war if you don't paint it in moral terms?  Rather difficult.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 janvier 2011 - 06:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...
but I wonder if this is not the price we have to pay for living in a democratic society and having the rule of consent.  How do you convince citizens to go to war if you don't paint it in moral terms?  Rather difficult.

Some theories suggest that democratic nations find it much easier to go to war and indeed, democratic nations have been among the most aggressive nations in history and the ones most susceptible to imperialism.

Debatable, but I think hsitorical evidence does support the theory.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
America would not be the world's strongest and one of most prosperous nations on Earth if it hadn't done what it did in the past and what it still does. I personally have no issue with what they do but rather the bull**** belief that America upholds some moral values as a nation.

Oh, I agree on the morality part. Yes, that is terribly annoying. But I think most every great power in history managed to play the morality/guided by god excuse for whatever actions. Religion, unfortunately, is a major influence in American politics, and thus, throwing in morality to gain support for anything is sadly a fact of life.

I definitely agree on the moral values part, though. But I don't think that was her arguement.

I personally would find it hard to believe the vast majority of Americans ( or hell people anywhere ) would be willing  for their country to lose it's wealth and power ( thus a massive decrease in living conditions ) just so that the nation is "moral". Hence the hypocrisy comment.

The problem is, is that we have lost a measure of our wealth and power, and will continue to do so if we continue along our idiotic path. And, the path we have been chosen is one of quick risk, quick return, which has been hurting us more than helping us. Engaging in behavior towards other countries which is generally considered immoral/unethical hasn't really been helping us at all (except perhaps an elite few, but for the majority, there has been a steady decline in living standards). 


But I understand now the basis for your hypocrisy arguement, and I agree in general. It's something I've argued about alot on politically centered chat boards.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
but I wonder if this is not the price we have to pay for living in a democratic society and having the rule of consent.  How do you convince citizens to go to war if you don't paint it in moral terms?  Rather difficult.

Some theories suggest that democratic nations find it much easier to go to war and indeed, democratic nations have been among the most aggressive nations in history and the ones most susceptible to imperialism.

Debatable, but I think hsitorical evidence does support the theory.

I could see why. Since democratic, popular support driven nations usually need popular support to go to war, and popular support is pretty easy to manipulate/sway if you know how, it's probably easier to get the population excited about it rather than forcing them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Also because citizens find themselves more engaged in the wellfare of their polity. Peasants usually didn't give a crap about their kingdom being at war, as long as it didn't affect them. Also because modern democracies have risen in tandum with modern nationalism (best example is France). The idea of fighting for ones nation is greater than the idea of fighting for one's king or for an ideology / philosophy (with the possible exception of religion).

About claiming the moral high ground. I can't think of a single civilization that didn't claim it was superior to others based on immaterial arguments. I don't particularly like the attitude, but I can see that it's extremely useful. A nation that believes it has a manifest destiny or mandate is more ambitious and productive than a nation that has no defined purpose for its existence. Such attitudes, even if in purely academic terms can be bs, are powerful tools for mobilization.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 07:41 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Also because citizens find themselves more engaged in the wellfare of their polity. Peasants usually didn't give a crap about their kingdom being at war, as long as it didn't affect them. Also because modern democracies have risen in tandum with modern nationalism (best example is France). The idea of fighting for ones nation is greater than the idea of fighting for one's king or for an ideology / philosophy (with the possible exception of religion).

Oh, absolutely. Which is why I argue with people who state religion is responsible for all wars, or even most of them. It is not. It actually made up a small number of wars compared to the total number. Nor have the biggest or bloodiest wars been about religion.

Collective identity/groupthink is an incredibly power motivator. People have an ingrained need to identify with something bigger but exclusive.

About claiming the moral high ground. I can't think of a single civilization that didn't claim it was superior to others based on immaterial arguments. I don't particularly like the attitude, but I can see that it's extremely useful. A nation that believes it has a manifest destiny or mandate is more ambitious and productive than a nation that has no defined purpose for its existence. Such attitudes, even if in purely academic terms can be bs, are powerful tools for mobilization.

Nor can I. The Romans certainly did it, and often criticized other cultures for engaging in practices they themselves practiced regularly.

It's a far more successful motivation than pure survival/need to expand. It's amazing how much the immaterial things matter when speaking of the human collective. It's the immaterial that binds and motivates, not practical matters.

Considering two possible scenarios for selling war/aggression to your poplation:

Scenario A: Where's going to invade and bomb Country A back into the stone age so we can take their recourses and establish a bigger military/political foothold in the region. Hundreds of thousands of people will die, we will terrorize and harrass their civilians, and though none of you will actually gain any benefit from this action, a few select friends of ours will reap loads!

Or

Scenario B: We are destined by God himself to go forth and liberate the poor, oppressed heathens of Country A, and share with them the blessings of freedom and happieness that God himself has gifted to this most blessed of nations on earth! It is our duty to free people from their oppression in Country A, because God himself commands us to!

I think it's clear who the 2011 Presidential debate winner is, here.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I concur on all counts. I personally need practical matters to motivate me, I don't buy any bs speeches, or patriotic songs, or some people who think they understand religion. But I know that this is what motivates the vast majority of people.

It's a very powerful tool, and one that plays with human emotions and feelings, something practical issues on their own fail to do.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I concur on all counts. I personally need practical matters to motivate me, I don't buy any bs speeches, or patriotic songs, or some people who think they understand religion. But I know that this is what motivates the vast majority of people.
It's a very powerful tool, and one that plays with human emotions and feelings, something practical issues on their own fail to do.

Yeah, I'm the same. Sadly, when discussing politics amongst alot of my own people, I find that if I'm going to get people to pay attention, I have to appeal to them on emotional level, not a practical/logical one. This is why the American media is so very successful: it uses twists of words/phrasology to bend/twist things to subconciously appeal to the emotions, not reason, of most people. And it works just the same in any sphere, even anti-war movement. You get more support appealing to emotional/,oral/ethical reasons to oppose a war than you do spelling out the purely pragmatic/practical reasons why a war/military action should not happen/is a bad idea.

Sadly, I know this from experience.<_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

Same. I think I am good enough in appealing to emotions and feelings, and talking about morality and ethics (I don't try it here though, because there is no point). But this is just bs I don't believe in, just know how to use.

So far, I found the easiest emotion to engender is anger.

[Giggles_Manically]

Fear is also an easy emotion to use on people.



Fear of the other is so easy to use on people in history.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Fear and anger, together, are the easiest ones I found work.



But yeah. I generally think the same. Though a certain amount of morality does drive my opinions on certain matters, almost all of my political considerations come from a purely pragmatic point of view. It's one of the few areas in my life where pragmatism reigns.



It is probably because I hold no illusions of what politics are really about, and thus, am not terribly offended by sleazy. corrupt behavior. In fact, I prefer it, so long as the politician involved is getting sh*t done and doing things I personally approve of.



it's also why I think I ended up initially picking Bhelen in Orzammar. My human noble rogue didn't know who to pick, and flipped a coin for it. But in my own mind, I guess I actually liked the way Bhelen operated personally, it was something familiar. The sleazeball tactics just clicked better than Harrowmont's "fight in the provings for me". And well, my human noble rogue liked a bit of sleazy politicking herself.



It is also probably why I ended up choosing to kill Loghain my first playthrough. Is that he actually believed in all his rants and rages. Politicians/leaders working on a purely or mostly moral compass scare me.



Though now, as through different playthroughs, I certainly spare him, and have a better grasp on his motivations and reasons.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Fear is also an easy emotion to use on people.

Fear of the other is so easy to use on people in history.

Fear and anger usually need each other.
Combine those with pride, moral superiority and a sense of destiny, and you are all set.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But yeah. I generally think the same. Though a certain amount of morality does drive my opinions on certain matters, almost all of my political considerations come from a purely pragmatic point of view. It's one of the few areas in my life where pragmatism reigns.

Same really.
Except I tend to think politically about almost everything. Which might be a bit weird.
And I bring pragmatism into most of morality, since I believe in the Rule of Law.

But that might be a bit cultural. Our culture is legalistic. It's based on the supremacy of law. We believe its source and basic tenants are divine and revealed, but a lot of it is man made / interpretted and we have schools of law for it. And I personally believe that even the things we believe are revealed to us, are pragmatic in nature and they certainly take into account practical issues.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 08:52 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Same really.
Except I tend to think politically about almost everything. Which might be a bit weird.
And I bring pragmatism into most of morality, since I believe in the Rule of Law.

And I'm a chaotic myself. basically, old school D&D law/chaos duality, with shifting morality on both ends.

But that might be a bit cultural. Our culture is legalistic. It's based on the supremacy of law. We believe its source and basic tenants are divine and revealed, but a lot of it is man made / interpretted and we have schools of law for it. And I personally believe that even the things we believe are revealed to us, are pragmatic in nature and they certainly take into account practical issues.

yes, that too. Amaricans have been traditionally a pretty lawless lot through most of our history, mostly making sh*t up as we went along while trying to appear civilized. And in this, this is an area we end up differing greatly in with our other Western cousins in Europe and Japan. It is a big difference even amongst westerners.

One of the greatest differences is belief in how much of a role government should play in the daily lives and business of the nation. Europeans tend to support heavily centralized and uniform governments that are highly involved in the health and welfare of their citizens. Americans prefer decentralization, with little involvement from the government in their lives or welfare in comparison. Even our most populous religion, Christianity, is highly fractured and uncentralized, with many different denominations, some even home grown ones.

That's another major difference: in American politics, religion and morality are much bigger driving factors than in Europe, where morality is more humanistically centered as opposed to religously. And of course, the Europeans are alot less religous than Americans are as a whole, so that's also a big difference.

It's one reason I am quite happy to have lived in Europe, I get a better understanding of their perspective, and the differences between the two main factions in the west becomes alot more clear and logical.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think in terms of government control, we would be in the middle. I think. We focus a lot on charity but that's outside the government. At the same time, Islam has laws about almost everything.

But I guess it's up for interpretation. Some who were clearly inspired by Europe advocate a very centralized government and most are secular in ideology (Ba'athists). Something I personally reject, as our huge bureaucracies are crap and an obstacle to progress.

But yes you are absolutely right in saying that there is a very big difference within the "western world". Europe is indeed very centralized. France in particular, since I know quite a bit about it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 09:28 .

[Costin_Razvan]

That's another major difference: in American politics, religion and morality are much bigger driving factors than in Europe, where morality is more humanistically centered as opposed to religously. And of course, the Europeans are alot less religous than Americans are as a whole, so that's also a big difference.

If by religious you mean that people believe in God or not then I think that a lot of Europeans do believe in it. However most believers also think the Church is full of **** nowadays.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

That's another major difference: in American politics, religion and morality are much bigger driving factors than in Europe, where morality is more humanistically centered as opposed to religously. And of course, the Europeans are alot less religous than Americans are as a whole, so that's also a big difference.

If by religious you mean that people believe in God or not then I think that a lot of Europeans do believe in it. However most believers also think the Church is full of **** nowadays.

By religous, I mean actively following and believing in a certain sect/denomination of a particular religon. Actively identifiying as such, and it being a major effect in the way you view the world or form moral opinions.

Europeans (in Western Europe, at least) tend to be more agnostic, or simply non-religous believers in some form of higher power.

That's what I mean by religous. Identifying as, and having belief in a particular religion. And as such, religous mores do not play as big a role in politics.

In some states, over 60% of the population are weekly church goers, and in such states, the laws are heavily religous in undertone, if not in wording. And those are often the states that are deciding states in US elections, so any Presidential candidate who hopes to have a chance in those states better at least appear to be a virtuous Christian.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think in terms of government control, we would be in the middle. I think. We focus a lot on charity but that's outside the government. At the same time, Islam has laws about almost everything.

But I guess it's up for interpretation. Some who were clearly inspired by Europe advocate a very centralized government and most are secular in ideology (Ba'athists). Something I personally reject, as our huge bureaucracies are crap and an obstacle to progress.

But yes you are absolutely right in saying that there is a very big difference within the "western world". Europe is indeed very centralized. France in particular, since I know quite a bit about it.

Oh yeah, France is heavily centralized. Germany was too, when I was stationed there. Europe in general is heavily centralized in my view. But it works. One size simply doesn't fit all when talking politicial/govornmental approaches.

Centralization would not function as well, I don't think in the US, and thus why I reject it as far as home politics go, but don't mind it here in Europe, as I can see culturally and historically why people benefit more from it over here.

Of course, when talking about Spain, Andalucia is a world unto itself. The laws in madrid simply don't translate well down here,  and are rarely enforced if unpopular. It's a pretty lawless place in comparison to the rest of the country, and has been a pain in the ass for Spanish rulers since 1492.

In alot of ways, it reminds me of the American West.

[Joy Divison]

Loghain must be a pretty deep damn character since just in the past we pages we've discussed great generals, influential historical leaders, and now the socio-political distinctions of the industrialized world :happy:

And to think the first time I played this game I couldn't wait to slice his throat.  Or the second time.  Probably the third too...

Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:09 .

[DragonRacer13]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Also because citizens find themselves more engaged in the wellfare of their polity. Peasants usually didn't give a crap about their kingdom being at war, as long as it didn't affect them. Also because modern democracies have risen in tandum with modern nationalism (best example is France). The idea of fighting for ones nation is greater than the idea of fighting for one's king or for an ideology / philosophy (with the possible exception of religion).

Oh, absolutely. Which is why I argue with people who state religion is responsible for all wars, or even most of them. It is not. It actually made up a small number of wars compared to the total number. Nor have the biggest or bloodiest wars been about religion.

Collective identity/groupthink is an incredibly power motivator. People have an ingrained need to identify with something bigger but exclusive.

About claiming the moral high ground. I can't think of a single civilization that didn't claim it was superior to others based on immaterial arguments. I don't particularly like the attitude, but I can see that it's extremely useful. A nation that believes it has a manifest destiny or mandate is more ambitious and productive than a nation that has no defined purpose for its existence. Such attitudes, even if in purely academic terms can be bs, are powerful tools for mobilization.

Nor can I. The Romans certainly did it, and often criticized other cultures for engaging in practices they themselves practiced regularly.

It's a far more successful motivation than pure survival/need to expand. It's amazing how much the immaterial things matter when speaking of the human collective. It's the immaterial that binds and motivates, not practical matters.

Considering two possible scenarios for selling war/aggression to your poplation:

Scenario A: Where's going to invade and bomb Country A back into the stone age so we can take their recourses and establish a bigger military/political foothold in the region. Hundreds of thousands of people will die, we will terrorize and harrass their civilians, and though none of you will actually gain any benefit from this action, a few select friends of ours will reap loads!

Or

Scenario B: We are destined by God himself to go forth and liberate the poor, oppressed heathens of Country A, and share with them the blessings of freedom and happieness that God himself has gifted to this most blessed of nations on earth! It is our duty to free people from their oppression in Country A, because God himself commands us to!

I think it's clear who the 2011 Presidential debate winner is, here.

You forget Scenario C) use a terrorist attack against civilians in your own country to launch a campaign against an entire race/religion of people.

I'll admit to being one of those swept away in the grief and anger of 9/11. I was beyond angry and wanted blood. But what we did... and what we continue to do... is not right. It's not solving anything. It's just making things worse.

Hard confession for one who was raised to love the red, white and blue... to sing patriotic songs and get misty-eyed at it... and to generally never question the greatness of my country... but there it is, true confession all the same. Still love my country, but am saddened by what it's become. Not that it ever started off on a great foot (that would be the 1/8th Cherokee in me speaking).

But anywhos, Loghain, yes?