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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (570083)	6/3/2010 10:13:07 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1580053

"I am stating that "right" is in the eyes of the beholder unless you can show me otherwise." My first response to you acknowledged the relevance of perspective. "The root of the matter is at hand. Who determines what is a valid argument? " The validity of an argument based on principle is determined by reason. "Many religions would dispute your premise on individual liberty." A wildly unaccountable statement which I don't accept. "Even the concept of individual liberty is suspect on its own merits." No it isn't, and you have shown no merits that are subject to question. "Suppose I was a Baathist in Iraq. I supported Saddam. That would be my freedom to do so." You would have been free to do so if the opportunity had presented it self, not without consequences of course. " It's a circular logic deal." No it isn't but you are free to talk in circles if it pleases you. "Who determines the bounds of acceptable individual liberty?" Principle determines the nature of individual liberty, applicable when the principle is properly couched or bound in noble human nature in conjunction with other principles of human goodness. "We're back to might makes right. The fact that you reject another's argument on what determines individual liberty doesn't make that person's argument "wrong" in and of itself does it?" No it doesn't. If another person expresses the idea of individual liberty in a corrupt manner then their conduct is wrong. For example you are not at liberty to tyrannically brutalize others and to define individual liberty in that manner is a corruption of the principle. Yes, that makes the person's argument wrong, and such arguments should be rejected on that basis. Support and protect strategic Interests: "Is it a matter of fact for all existing nations? " Yes. "When Saddam tried to protect his oil from being stolen by Kuwait what happened? Did the US accept his argument that Kuwait was slant drilling into his oil. hell no. We went in and crushed him then rewrote history. So much for being "right". It was more complicated than you present it but in any event written 'history' is not the only judge of what is right or who is right, it is a perspective and subject to corrupt influences. You are judging from your perspective what you think is right. "...isn't it a truism that the winner of the war writes the history?" The winner usually gets the last word for the public record at least initially but not always. And time has an effect. The Romans whooped the Jews in a pretty total manner in Jerusalem a while back and yet the perspectives on that event is varied and mostly negative wrt the Roman forces. The American Indian legacy has slowly turned from what it was a century or so ago. I don't really care or think that is relevant to my position on this topic. "Military power is definitely a right. As in "the right to bear arms". Here is an example of where you are playing loose with the term 'right'. First because the right to bear arms is not a human principle, it is a legal provision based on a human principle, the right to self defense. Secondly the right to bear arms is not a moral right but a legal right afforded to citizens. Third having the legal right to bear arms does not authorize military activity. Forth military is part of National defense similar in nature to self defense but in this case for the group living under the national umbrella. The two things have no connection except that weaponry is mentionable in both contexts and defense qualifies the provisions.