Poll: Should all peoples be entitled to self-determination?
Yes
No
I'm a hypocrite so I'd rather pick and choose whatever suits me instead of being consistant
[Show Results]
 
Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2014, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2014 08:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 08:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 07:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ANY *referendum* in the present circumstances is invalid. I mean with the Russian army breathing down your neck :
"wanna be a Russki" ?

Do you have ANY evidence to support your claim, or are you just fabricating this because it fits your agenda. I have read NOTHING to suggest that the Crimean parliament was strong-armed by Russian military to vote for secession. In fact, it's the opposite, the people of Crimea were asking for Russian invention.

These comparisons to Hitler are so laughable, because Russia is actually doing what the US and UK did for France AGAINST Hitler. The French WANTED US/UK troops to come to France and help them fight off the Germans. And the US/UK obliged. Do you seriously call that "an invasion"? Would you say it was the US/UK who were the aggressors and invaded France during WWII? Since Russia is just doing the same thing it's equally absurd to call Russia's actions an invasion either.

Take your pills sweetie. I said NOTHING about Hitler.
But thanks for remaining true to form, and putting words in people's mouths, then trying to argue against your made up oh-so-obvious cooked up strawman lie-shit. Thumbsup
(People are kinda on to your "schstick". Maybe buy a new one.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2014 01:16 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
People are not entitled, and I chose No.

The fact always is if people determine for themselves, they have earned it through their own efforts. Like the US after WWII, UK after 1588, 1805 and Industrial Revolution, France after the revolutions and a government-in-exile in WWII which refuses to surrender, Russia after USSR, and China after the Korean War and Opening-up and Reform.

People are not entitled. It is earned.

And as what Chas baby said, I thank you for you stance on this, which can be interpretted as that Uygurs and Tibetans have no right to leave only by their own choice. We should have agreed for one time. Weird.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
You don't gain self-determination by voting for it. You gain it by coming out on top in the fight that follows.

Lincoln spoke of government "of the people, by the people and for the people" without apparently seeing the irony that he was presently engaged in a civil war to keep 40% of those people in that government at bayonet point.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
08-03-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 09:11 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  People are not entitled. It is earned.

Please clarify. If you are not entitled to determine your own destiny, who is? And what did that person do to earn the right to determine someone else's destiny?

Throughout history, imo, whenever one person "earns" the right to determine another person's destiny, it's done through violence. To me, initiating violence doesn't "earn" you anything--it makes a club-wielding brute.

IMO, every human being has the right to self determination, to life, liberty and property.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
08-03-2014, 09:43 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2014 01:11 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 09:11 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  People are not entitled. It is earned.

Please clarify. If you are not entitled to determine your own destiny, who is? And what did that person do to earn the right to determine someone else's destiny?

Throughout history, imo, whenever one person "earns" the right to determine another person's destiny, it's done through violence. To me, initiating violence doesn't "earn" you anything--it makes a club-wielding brute.

IMO, every human being has the right to self determination, to life, liberty and property.

In ideal, I totally agree with you. People theoretically should be 100% entitled to determine their own fate. But how should it be realized then ?

Crimea people should determine their own fate. But it would't be possible for them to join Russia without Russia's military presence. Yet again, there's Russia's military presence already ...

Yes, determing other people's fate is always through violence. And that's how the business has normally been done for the past ... entire human history ? (although I DO think using less violence in such issues is the way toward better civilization.)

And again, the definition of the word "people" is also interesting. In Greek Republicans, it didn't involve slaves. In current day India, there's a saying that there are 100 million people in its 1.2 billion population, which shows you that the word "people" is not as friendly towards its less priviliged components as it is to the top 10%.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
It depends on who defines people and how it's done, Argentina doesn't recognize the Falkland inhabitants as "people", of course because it suits our interests. But the definition has its merits as it only stands to defend ancestral ethnicities instead of just anyone that just happens to be somewhere. Otherwise we could fall in the absurdity of saying that a bunch of immigrants can vote and secede just because they are "people".

It's a very ideological question, it hardly admits a yes/no answer.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 08:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Take your pills sweetie. I said NOTHING about Hitler.
But thanks for remaining true to form, and putting words in people's mouths, then trying to argue against your made up oh-so-obvious cooked up strawman lie-shit. Thumbsup
(People are kinda on to your "schstick". Maybe buy a new one.)

Excuse me? You're right this is the usual shit. YOU cooked up the strawman shit. I never claimed you said anything about Hitler. Reread my post. The first paragraph was a direct response to your post, challenging you to provide a citation to back up your wild conspiracy theory. Naturally you ran from the challenge, thus conceding it is YOU who is just making shit up.

The second paragraph wasn't about you. I never mentioned you or attributed it to you. It was a general comment about what so many are saying, including Hillary Clinton.

I stand by both paragraphs. YOU are throwing out this strawman, claiming I accused you of making a Hitler analogy, hoping that this will distract other readers so they don't notice that you conveniently ran from my challenge to present any evidence to support your nonsensical conspiracy theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 10:38 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 06:55 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  ...
How many times do they bring up the vote? Do they keep voting until they separate? And if they win, do they keep voting to see if they rejoin? What's the time period between votes? Do they vote every year? Once every 5yrs? 10yrs? 50yrs?

I'm reminded of Scotland Smile

Meanwhile, on a semantic note, if there is more than one referendum is it ...

Referenda or referendums ...
You decide!
Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
08-03-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 09:43 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  Yes, determing other people's fate is always through violence. And that's how the business has normally been done for the past ... entire human history ?

Correct, the only system that does not involve violence is letting people determine their own fate. Thus I believe everybody has the right to exercise free will determine their own fate, and nobody has the right to determine other's fate and deny them free will.

(08-03-2014 09:43 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  (although I don't think using less violence in such issues is the way toward better civilization.)

"Better" is subjective. Sure, ancient Egypt thrived from slave labor, as did the early US. But having impressive monuments or a big industry imo does not make a civilization "better". To me, a "better" civilization is one where the people are happy--and nobody is happy when they are being forced to do things against their will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 01:10 AM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2014 08:51 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Are all peoples entitled to self-determination?
(08-03-2014 10:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 09:43 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  Yes, determing other people's fate is always through violence. And that's how the business has normally been done for the past ... entire human history ?

Correct, the only system that does not involve violence is letting people determine their own fate. Thus I believe everybody has the right to exercise free will determine their own fate, and nobody has the right to determine other's fate and deny them free will.

Correct also. As I said, I agree with you on this part in ideal. But here comes the definition of people again. Not only that, but also the scale. Federation and Republic the right size ? A villiage ? An organization ? A single person ?

Beside even if will is really free and is impossible to be tainted by outside views, there still are objective consequences, which in you opinion, might be violence again. Look, you have your free will and want to eat an apple and get your "Intelligence +100", the invisible man gets unhappy. Let the Ukraine people determine, the Crimeans think it is an violence imposed. Let the Crimeans determine, the rest Ukrainians think it is an violence splitting up the entire country ...

In a phylosophy branch's beliefs, people were free lone-lance wolves doing what ever they wanted, later on, they decided that it was not their best interest to fight each other while fight agains the hash nature, they gave up part of such absolute freedom they had, use it to empower an organization of some sort of structure and began a society. Primative, slavery, feudalistic, republic along the way. Less violence indeed, but it is achieved through bloodshed and nothing is entitled.

Everybody is exercising their free will at every moment: fight or flight, and that indeed determines part of their fate, more or less, but never entirely. Absolute freedom is just ideal, and you already felt the hardship in simply taking the stance on it. Fighting for it is a lot harder, unless you can get as hypocritical as some US Republicans to the extent that "They did it, all by themselves."

To wrap it up, I like less violence in such issues, which is normally able to be achieved by a balance of forces capable of conducting violence, i.e., earned, other than "ask and you will receive" or "it has always been in your pocket.".

(08-03-2014 10:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 09:43 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  (although I don't think using less violence in such issues is the way toward better civilization.)

"Better" is subjective. Sure, ancient Egypt thrived from slave labor, as did the early US. But having impressive monuments or a big industry imo does not make a civilization "better". To me, a "better" civilization is one where the people are happy--and nobody is happy when they are being forced to do things against their will.

Um ... "don't" is a typo. Maybe subconcicously I might have other things on mind. But I meant to type "do" here ...

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: