Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (100631)	6/7/2003 8:17:08 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You were quoting Kant as cover in order to fob off your own inanity as somehow legitimate by association. Like this: >> [insert Kant quote] [Say something stupid] [insert additional Kant quote] [Say something else equally stupid] [insert additional Kant quote] [Borrow some of Kant's language, or just a phrase, and insert in a sentence that says something stupid.] << That's not scholarship, it's not analysis, it's camouflage. And here you are proving it. To disagree with you is to disagree with Kant, because you were shrewd enough to paste a few of his quotes in the middle of your usual drivel. Baloney. Hogwash.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (100631)	6/8/2003 1:23:10 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And that, when a strong nation uses force to "fix" the problems of a weak nation, the result is tyranny, not freedom. As the horrifying humanitarian disaster in Cambodia continued growing the Vietnamese decided they had to do something about it. No one else was willing. The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and put down the Pol Pot regime. Once there was some order in the country, the Vietnamese asked neighbours and the large powers which were their friends to help them restore government. The neighbours, and particularly China didn't want to be involved. The Vietnamese eventually said if they got no help they would leave the place and gave a deadline and its neighbours and others perked up and helped out. The Vietnamese left. If you visit Cambodia and talk to folk you will find that Cambodians aren't very fond of the Vietnamese, who are traditional adversaries, but they will say they owe the Vietnamese a service for saving them from that catastrophic regime. The Vietnamese gave them freedom (this is very odd because the Cambododians now may have more freedom than the Vietnamese). The one instance invalidates your statement. It's not true in every instance. This general statement you made is just that - a general statement. It has little descriptive value. A problem philosophers have made for themselves since the time of Plato is universalization of statements which were descriptive of a particular case -in other words, theory making or systemizing where it's inappropriate. In the material world, and especially when talkng about human behaviour, the theory of philosophers is often contradicted by contingency.