Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

1161719212224

Posts

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Although Argentina has a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the junta in their use of The Foreign Menace to garner popular support.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Although Argentina has a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the junta in their use of The Foreign Menace to garner popular support.

    I mean, every country does that. Heck, we do it much better.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yay for imperialism.

    Look, we sent our big ships to kill you and we won this island that's not even in the same hemisphere of the globe.
    Although Argentina has a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the junta in their use of The Foreign Menace to garner popular support.

    Although the UK is a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the abusive globe trotting imperialists in their use of magnificent force to secure resources from third world countries.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    Yay for imperialism.

    Look, we sent our big ships to kill you and we won this island that's not even in the same hemisphere of the globe.
    Although Argentina has a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the junta in their use of The Foreign Menace to garner popular support.

    Although the UK is a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the abusive globe trotting imperialists in their use of magnificent force to secure resources from third world countries.

    I'm pretty sure it's in the rules to read the thread before posting. Your embarrassingly thoughtless and lazy post has already been addressed, at great length.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Apropos:
    Unfortunately Argentina’s government has been giving unorthodox policy a bad name by associating thuggish behavior with it.

    There is some speculation that the nationalization may have some domestic political subtleties going on, although it's rarely a good sign when policy is driven by non-transparent subtleties.

    aRkpc.gif
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Sheep wrote: »
    Yay for imperialism.

    Look, we sent our big ships to kill you and we won this island that's not even in the same hemisphere of the globe.
    Although Argentina has a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the junta in their use of The Foreign Menace to garner popular support.

    Although the UK is a democratic government now, they don't seem so different from the abusive globe trotting imperialists in their use of magnificent force to secure resources from third world countries.

    This is borderline trolling. I recommend reading the thread and engaging with it before posting further.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's vaguely reassuring when Argentina starts being dicks to everyone and not just us:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17739204

    Is it really being a dick when they just want control over their own resources?

    Must. Not. Bite....

    I'm talking about nationalizing YPF, not fighting over the Falkland island.


    Ah. Good job I didn't bite then.

    No really, what's wrong with this?

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The Economist has a pretty good explanation.

    TL;DR: You can't just go seizing private assets without serious economic and diplomatic repercussions.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Again, if you read the thread, you'd find that Argentina doesn't actually have much actual claim to the Falklands, unless suddenly the penguins are considered citizens. If you want more explanation, it is in this thread.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Economist has a pretty good explanation.

    TL;DR: You can't just go seizing private assets without serious economic and diplomatic repercussions.

    Well yea, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, if the majority of voters are okay with it anyways. Otherwise it's just theft.

    rayofash on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Economist has a pretty good explanation.

    TL;DR: You can't just go seizing private assets without serious economic and diplomatic repercussions.

    Well yea, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, if the majority of voters are okay with it anyways.

    I don't think governments have an inherent moral right to seize assets of foreign companies with no justification.

    And if it harms Argentinians in the future for short sighted political gain, it is absolutely wrong.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Economist has a pretty good explanation.

    TL;DR: You can't just go seizing private assets without serious economic and diplomatic repercussions.

    Well yea, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, if the majority of voters are okay with it anyways.

    I don't think governments have an inherent moral right to seize assets of foreign companies with no justification.

    And if it harms Argentinians in the future for short sighted political gain, it is absolutely wrong.

    It's an Argentine company, they're just taking back 51% of the shares. It used to be national but was privatized in 1993 and bought and merged by Repsol in 99.

    >And if it harms Argentinians in the future for short sighted political gain, it is absolutely wrong

    Not if the majority of Argentinians agree with it (I have no idea if they do). Stupid, yes, but not wrong.

    For the record I personally think it's wrong for any government to take anything from anybody by force whether or not the majority democratically decide it should do it, it's theft either way. I'm just playing devils advocate.

    rayofash on
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    It's still theft if you're not paying for it. It doesn't matter how many people think you should do it, taking something without paying is theft. Now, not all theft is morally wrong, and it is possible that this was a necessary thing to do.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Economist has a pretty good explanation.

    TL;DR: You can't just go seizing private assets without serious economic and diplomatic repercussions.

    Well yea, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, if the majority of voters are okay with it anyways.

    I don't think governments have an inherent moral right to seize assets of foreign companies with no justification.

    And if it harms Argentinians in the future for short sighted political gain, it is absolutely wrong.

    It's an Argentine company, they're just taking back 51% of the shares. It used to be national but was privatized in 1993 and bought and merged by Repsol in 99.

    Repsol is Spanish, and owns those shares in YPF, which Argentina is seizing. Which I think violates international trade laws, if nothing else.

    It's bad economics, it's bad foreign policy, and it's illegal. I don't know how it could be more wrong.
    >And if it harms Argentinians in the future for short sighted political gain, it is absolutely wrong

    Not if the majority of Argentinians agree with it (I have no idea if they do). Stupid, yes, but not wrong.

    For the record I personally think it's wrong for any government to take anything from anybody by force whether or not the majority democratically decide it should do it.

    It's not a direct democracy. It's not the job of politicians to lead the charge off the cliff even if everyone else wants to.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Violating a law isn't inherently wrong, neither is making poor economic or foreign policy decisions. I understand it's not a direct democracy, but it is the elected politicians jobs to do things like this in a representative democracy.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    All of this is conjecture anyhow

    they may well pay Repsol fair market value for the shares

    fuck gendered marketing
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    They've been printing money like crazy, might as well print some more to pay off Repsol.

    It is totally false to say that printing more money generates inflation.
    MercoPress wrote:
    Argentina’s official inflation in 2011 reached 9.5% ... [which is] disputed by the Congressional index [which] estimates [it] at ... 22.8%.

    HMM

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

  • BogartBogart I Will Cure You Registered User, Moderator mod
    Elldren wrote: »
    All of this is conjecture anyhow

    they may well pay Repsol fair market value for the shares

    Which will probably be a lot less than the actual fair price, because I believe they've been sinking since this shit started. If that was their plan from the start it seems to be working a treat.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

    The social contract itself is morally wrong. Just because somebody is born doesn't mean they automatically owe some existential debt to the universe. People are not an "indivisible part of the whole" who must bend to "the supreme direction of the general will" (Rousseau). Argentina is a good example of this (better examples would be 1930s Germany, who by majority elected the Nazi party). Under the social contract if they don't like what the country is doing they should just leave.

    rayofash on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people.

    So Repsol's shareholders are not harmed by having their property seized?
    The Argentine people are not harmed by being impoverished because they cannot get any international investment into their economy?
    They are not harmed by retributive trade sanctions from Spain (if it comes to that)?
    Or by being unable to make treaties and such with other nations because of their damaged reputation?
    Or by the loss of government services because it was fined by the World Bank and runs out of assets to seize?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Nazis weren't actually elected to a majority. Also, nice Godwin.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

    The social contract itself is morally wrong. Just because somebody is born doesn't mean they automatically owe some existential debt to the universe. People are not an "indivisible part of the whole" who must bend to "the supreme direction of the general will" (Rousseau). Argentina is a good example of this (better examples would be 1930s Germany, who by majority elected the Nazi party). Under the social contract if they don't like what the country is doing they should just leave.

    I don't think you understand how civilization works.

    Governments have a duty to protect its citizenry and their interests.
    Citizens have a duty to ensure their government is accountable and functioning.
    Everyone should look after one another (to an extent).

    If you don't like something your government is doing, it's your duty as a citizen to work to change it. I also believe that one should have the right to emigrate if one so chooses, but it is the duty of the people to hold government accountable.

    Basically, I think you're being a bit of a libertarian goose.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

    The social contract itself is morally wrong. Just because somebody is born doesn't mean they automatically owe some existential debt to the universe. People are not an "indivisible part of the whole" who must bend to "the supreme direction of the general will" (Rousseau). Argentina is a good example of this (better examples would be 1930s Germany, who by majority elected the Nazi party). Under the social contract if they don't like what the country is doing they should just leave.

    I don't think you understand how civilization works.

    Governments have a duty to protect its citizenry and their interests.
    Citizens have a duty to ensure their government is accountable and functioning.
    Everyone should look after one another (to an extent).

    If you don't like something your government is doing, it's your duty as a citizen to work to change it. I also believe that one should have the right to emigrate if one so chooses, but it is the duty of the people to hold government accountable.

    Basically, I think you're being a bit of a libertarian goose.

    I agree with everything you said (and I refer hamham to read it as my response to his), I think it's immoral for somebody to just sit back and let their government run amok. But usually people say if you don't like what the government is doing you should leave and then cite the astral 'social contract' which everybody has to follow because they had the misfortune of being conceived by their parents. They use it as a generic response for when the government is doing something they like that you don't. And the social contract isn't necessary for civilization. Not everybody has to agree with the way everything is ran.

    As for libertarian, my views fall in line with theirs but I prefer 'voluntarist', and I prefer socialism to capitalism ('libertarian socialist').

    rayofash on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

    The social contract itself is morally wrong. Just because somebody is born doesn't mean they automatically owe some existential debt to the universe. People are not an "indivisible part of the whole" who must bend to "the supreme direction of the general will" (Rousseau). Argentina is a good example of this (better examples would be 1930s Germany, who by majority elected the Nazi party). Under the social contract if they don't like what the country is doing they should just leave.

    I don't think you understand how civilization works.

    Governments have a duty to protect its citizenry and their interests.
    Citizens have a duty to ensure their government is accountable and functioning.
    Everyone should look after one another (to an extent).

    If you don't like something your government is doing, it's your duty as a citizen to work to change it. I also believe that one should have the right to emigrate if one so chooses, but it is the duty of the people to hold government accountable.

    Basically, I think you're being a bit of a libertarian goose.

    I agree with everything you said (and I refer hamham to read it as my response to his), I think it's immoral for somebody to just sit back and let their government run amok. But usually people say if you don't like what the government is doing you should leave and then cite the astral 'social contract' which everybody has to follow because they had the misfortune of being conceived by their parents. They use it as a generic response for when the government is doing something they like that you don't. And the social contract isn't necessary for civilization. Not everybody has to agree with the way everything is ran.

    As for libertarian, my views fall in line with theirs but I prefer 'voluntarist', and I prefer socialism to capitalism ('libertarian socialist').

    Libertarian Socialist isn't a thing that can exist.

    I don't think the general argument is "love it or leave it" under the social contract, since the other half of the social contract is citizens holding government accountable.

    If people are giving you that response about the social contract, they don't understand the social contract.

    The social contract doesn't mean "everyone agrees with the way everything is ran" in fact that is antithetical to it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Libertarian Socialist isn't a thing that can exist.

    Libertarian used to be what anarchists called themselves until capitalists took it over. Kind of like how Liberal isn't the same as Libertarian.

    From Wikipedia:
    Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

    rayofash on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Libertarian Socialist isn't a thing that can exist.

    Libertarian used to be what anarchists called themselves until capitalists took it over. Kind of like how Liberal isn't the same as Libertarian.

    From Wikipedia:
    Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

    Now go look up Socialist.

    What you are suggesting is a label which has no meaning.

    One cannot be for rugged individualism and at the same time wish for the government to look after everyone.

    Well actually, you can, but it's not a Libertarian Socialist.

    Also, if you wish, we can have a thread about Libertariansim, but this is about the Falkland Islands and I guess other silly things Kirchner gets up to.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Libertarian Socialist isn't a thing that can exist.

    Libertarian used to be what anarchists called themselves until capitalists took it over. Kind of like how Liberal isn't the same as Libertarian.

    From Wikipedia:
    Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

    Now go look up Socialist.

    What you are suggesting is a label which has no meaning.

    One cannot be for rugged individualism and at the same time wish for the government to look after everyone.

    Well actually, you can, but it's not a Libertarian Socialist.

    Also, if you wish, we can have a thread about Libertariansim, but this is about the Falkland Islands and I guess other silly things Kirchner gets up to.
    I've been thinking about that actually, but I'm a little uncomfortable being everyones lightning rod of hate. But I guess I will.

    God have mercy on me.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Harming people isn't inherently wrong?

    We're not talking about harming people. If the actions directly lead to harm they are morally wrong and it should be stopped.
    By default, violating a law is wrong. It's up to the offender to demonstrate why that law is unjust.

    By default violating a law is legally wrong, not morally wrong.

    No, by definition violating a law is legally wrong. You inherently agree to abide by a society's laws by being a member. It's called the social contract. Violating that is morally wrong, unless you can produce an actual justification for it.

    The social contract itself is morally wrong. Just because somebody is born doesn't mean they automatically owe some existential debt to the universe. People are not an "indivisible part of the whole" who must bend to "the supreme direction of the general will" (Rousseau). Argentina is a good example of this (better examples would be 1930s Germany, who by majority elected the Nazi party). Under the social contract if they don't like what the country is doing they should just leave.

    I don't think you understand how civilization works.

    Governments have a duty to protect its citizenry and their interests.
    Citizens have a duty to ensure their government is accountable and functioning.
    Everyone should look after one another (to an extent).

    If you don't like something your government is doing, it's your duty as a citizen to work to change it. I also believe that one should have the right to emigrate if one so chooses, but it is the duty of the people to hold government accountable.

    Basically, I think you're being a bit of a libertarian goose.

    I agree with everything you said (and I refer hamham to read it as my response to his), I think it's immoral for somebody to just sit back and let their government run amok. But usually people say if you don't like what the government is doing you should leave and then cite the astral 'social contract' which everybody has to follow because they had the misfortune of being conceived by their parents. They use it as a generic response for when the government is doing something they like that you don't. And the social contract isn't necessary for civilization. Not everybody has to agree with the way everything is ran.

    As for libertarian, my views fall in line with theirs but I prefer 'voluntarist', and I prefer socialism to capitalism ('libertarian socialist').

    As lord of all words said and written ever, I'm not aware of intelligent people on the non-internets who liberally use the words "social contract" as a "generic response" in polite conversation ever. This is, of course, aside from high school kids who just had Rousseau as assigned reading, or else college students who went to bad high schools and so are learning about Rousseau for the first time ever, and want to live out their mandatory year or two of personal development as babby's first political contrarian.

    That was tongue in cheek, of course, but the seriouspointtothis is that the social contract isn't justification for collectivism over individual liberty. It was simply one man's attempt to articulate why we organize ourselves this way anyway--why we were choosing to organize ourselves this way, why we might go on to organize ourselves this way. It was never the reason unto itself.

    There is a strong possibility that if one person seriously tells another that they are not living up to an implicit obligation of the "social contract" (or something akin to this), that it is merely a shorthand way of describing a kind of individual who has elevated themselves beyond others to such an exaggerated extent, that they have lost touch with what it means to even be a citizen. And citizenship may indeed entail having some modicum of concern for others you may not know, or a willingness to pay for services you may not use, and so forth. You know, everything some have so clumsily but also cleverly decried as "socialism," even though it's just third grade social studies class, remix edition. This is basic stuff to say the least.

  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Живу за выходные American ValhallaRegistered User regular
    I don't at all agree with @RayofAsh's views on Argentina, but Libertarian Socialism is very much a thing.

    Libertarian doesn't classically mean people who go around shouting "RAWN PAUL 2012" . An example of this can be given by the quote:
    "In Europe, Libertarians smash up Mcdonald's, in America, they own them."

    Even in Europe now though, Libertarians do usually fall on the political right.

    But yes, Libertarian Socialism is a thing. From wiki:
    Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

    Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

    Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[10] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    I never understand the point of playing Devil's advocate.

    It just means you advance arguments you don't agree with, that make no sense, for the sake of arguing.

    You can't really even debate someone who is playing Devil's advocate, because they will then just shift to another flawed argument in order to continue arguing.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • jammujammu Never-Ending, Never Alone Registered User regular
    I don't think argentine is even trying to get outsider support.
    The goal is to get domestic support for the goverment, not to get stated goals. (falklands or oil company.)

    Ww8FAMg.jpg
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Живу за выходные American ValhallaRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I never understand the point of playing Devil's advocate.

    It just means you advance arguments you don't agree with, that make no sense, for the sake of arguing.

    You can't really even debate someone who is playing Devil's advocate, because they will then just shift to another flawed argument in order to continue arguing.

    Who's playing Devil's advocate? I'm certainly not, I'm just defending the fact that his political theory is a thing, that no one else recognized.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Again, it sometimes DOES make economic sense to nationalise a company. Some companies working within developing countries really abuse their position to the detriment of the country. Others operate under ridiculous contracts drawn up by madmen or by government officials who were on the take. In those circumstances, where the company is mainly draining the country of money and resources with little benefit, the companies should be nationalised for operating in an abusive manner.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    No offence but this is absolute prize grade horse manure. Every word. The UK's war against Argentina was extremely restricted and contained. Not one shell or missile was fired outside the combat zone around the island itself.

    So basically you're calling Coporal Bramley, who was actually there and fighting for your country, a liar. Because you know better than someone who in the trenches (so to speak), I guess?
    I agree. It is completely irrelevant whether she was advancing in to the British flotilla all guns blazing or steaming away on fire with everyone waving their arms and screaming. There is no international law or convention saying you can't shoot at military targets if they're not advancing. Yes ender, war is shitty and people die, but I find your entire attitude painfully naive.

    So it was also fine for the Argentinians to shoot at the unarmed British soldiers at Goose Green who were waving a white flag, then? Because I don't think so.

    In any case, Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says it's illegal to attack a surrendering or fleeing enemy, and Articles 12 & 18 of the Second Geneva Convention expressly forbid the attacking of shipwrecked crew. I mean, maybe you don't give a shit about international law or the Geneva Conventions - but if that's the case, you don't have any moral high ground from which to pronounce the legitimacy of the operation in the first place.

    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    How many weeks later are you coming back to this?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    /shrug

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.