to BY
Couple a things: Agree that it's not the US populations fault and that the 911 WTC attack was a response to the actions of previous governments/politicians/agents and not to the american people. What OBL etc would argue is that by voting for/allowing the policies of division/demoralisation/destruction in the Middle east and Africa the American people have opted out of morality, and therefore are immoral.
It's such an easy get out clause (and one we all use on these boards) - as it's a conspiracy, by non-elected officials/wizards-in-league-with-the-devil it's impossible for my actions to contribute to the suffering of others world-wide. This isn't true, as there are several ways in which one can, in the famous phrase, 'think globally and act locally'. Changing your shopping habits, reducing your impact on the local environment through waste reduction, taking part in local community action/volunteer work etc, not driving a car and using more public transport. The reason people are being killed in Afghanistan may well be over oil - therefore everyone that refuses to countenance getting rid of their cars is indirectly responsible for these deaths abroad. In a global market, all our actions have global consequences.
an odd list there BY... you use these as examples of decaying morals, yet without your own reasoning behind your choices it's hard to see their validity. You claim no-one has directly addressed these, so I'll have a quick go
How are criminals rewarded? Common criminals are facing increasingly stern measures, there are more people in prison in the US/Uk than ever before (although with poulation growth that's unsurprising), the US execute people on a daily basis - hardly rewarding. Yes there has been some liberalisation of prisons, in certain areas, but these prisons are mostly for drug offenders, and other low threat cases. Do you believe that criminals cannot be rehabilitated or that their actions do not have logical causes, which have unavoidably lead to crime (i.e. poverty, ignorance, lack of resources in the community etc.).
'Human rights' surely are something which should be upheld by UN/international bodies and apply to every person in the world - i.e. the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, to have food, water, medicines and shelter. How are these Human Right's destroying family values. The only family values I get from america is the value of the christmas presents and the expensive trainers that you spoil your children with. O and that the only family with any value is a conservative, white, man/wife2kids one, and that all other family units are perverted.
The last, the destruction of national institutions, is the one I find most odd amongst your list. As the US has never really had nationalised industry/healthcare or politics it's odd to hear you bemoaning it's downfall over here. I agree that the sale, stripping and disposal of nationalised industry has sent us backwards not forwards, and that british business has suffered dramatically because of it - the US backers of Railtrack having said they'll never invest in UK rail again (but then look at AmTrack - hardly the epitome of a well run industry). I can't see how this fits in with any libertarian or liberal ideas at all. This is just nepotism on a grand scale. If you study who was responsible for any of the national UK industries before privatisation (i.e. who held the purse strings/made policy for them) and then afterwards, a lot of the same names crop up. These people weren't picked because they were good at their jobs, they were picked because they knew the right people.
Oh and what is this PC crap, no-one uses PC language any more, it's your own problem for being obssessed with litigation, and the first ammendment of your own constitution (i think ) enshrines people's right to free speech - so give it a rest, you and MK both sound like bar room reprobates who got kicked out of law school for trying to see up a girl's dress...
Couple a things: Agree that it's not the US populations fault and that the 911 WTC attack was a response to the actions of previous governments/politicians/agents and not to the american people. What OBL etc would argue is that by voting for/allowing the policies of division/demoralisation/destruction in the Middle east and Africa the American people have opted out of morality, and therefore are immoral.
It's such an easy get out clause (and one we all use on these boards) - as it's a conspiracy, by non-elected officials/wizards-in-league-with-the-devil it's impossible for my actions to contribute to the suffering of others world-wide. This isn't true, as there are several ways in which one can, in the famous phrase, 'think globally and act locally'. Changing your shopping habits, reducing your impact on the local environment through waste reduction, taking part in local community action/volunteer work etc, not driving a car and using more public transport. The reason people are being killed in Afghanistan may well be over oil - therefore everyone that refuses to countenance getting rid of their cars is indirectly responsible for these deaths abroad. In a global market, all our actions have global consequences.
an odd list there BY... you use these as examples of decaying morals, yet without your own reasoning behind your choices it's hard to see their validity. You claim no-one has directly addressed these, so I'll have a quick go
How are criminals rewarded? Common criminals are facing increasingly stern measures, there are more people in prison in the US/Uk than ever before (although with poulation growth that's unsurprising), the US execute people on a daily basis - hardly rewarding. Yes there has been some liberalisation of prisons, in certain areas, but these prisons are mostly for drug offenders, and other low threat cases. Do you believe that criminals cannot be rehabilitated or that their actions do not have logical causes, which have unavoidably lead to crime (i.e. poverty, ignorance, lack of resources in the community etc.).
'Human rights' surely are something which should be upheld by UN/international bodies and apply to every person in the world - i.e. the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, to have food, water, medicines and shelter. How are these Human Right's destroying family values. The only family values I get from america is the value of the christmas presents and the expensive trainers that you spoil your children with. O and that the only family with any value is a conservative, white, man/wife2kids one, and that all other family units are perverted.
The last, the destruction of national institutions, is the one I find most odd amongst your list. As the US has never really had nationalised industry/healthcare or politics it's odd to hear you bemoaning it's downfall over here. I agree that the sale, stripping and disposal of nationalised industry has sent us backwards not forwards, and that british business has suffered dramatically because of it - the US backers of Railtrack having said they'll never invest in UK rail again (but then look at AmTrack - hardly the epitome of a well run industry). I can't see how this fits in with any libertarian or liberal ideas at all. This is just nepotism on a grand scale. If you study who was responsible for any of the national UK industries before privatisation (i.e. who held the purse strings/made policy for them) and then afterwards, a lot of the same names crop up. These people weren't picked because they were good at their jobs, they were picked because they knew the right people.
Oh and what is this PC crap, no-one uses PC language any more, it's your own problem for being obssessed with litigation, and the first ammendment of your own constitution (i think
) enshrines people's right to free speech - so give it a rest, you and MK both sound like bar room reprobates who got kicked out of law school for trying to see up a girl's dress...
) and Major. We still don't agree but we've changed.
) wish to remain part of the UK?