International thread 2

[Conflicting Thought]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, the “Fallacy of relative privation”, for the win?  This is a “whataboutism” argument at its finest.  If “whataboutism” doesn’t work for Trumpanistas when they throw “whatabout her emails???” Every time someone demonstrates Trump’s illegalities why is “whataboutism” a legitimate way to attack someone who is concerned about Maduro’s Government in Venezuala?

Nope, i just find that this obsession with venezuela and intervention to be strange. And to point out that, this policy of interventions is not aplicable on a global capacity. And when it has been applied it almost always works in favor of the intervining power at an incredible high cost of the people being intervined, and that it makes thing much worse for them. 

And pointing out (suspected) fallacies is an easy way of not addresing the point i was trying to make. That is, the obsession with Venezuela of mostly american  people. 

[Heartofice]

20 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You clearly understand nothing at all about Brexit. Just Google brexit+Cambridge analytica+electoral commission. That should fill in the gaps. 

Our government is behaving as if the crimes of Vote Leave just did not happen. Also, the referendum is not binding, but our political leaders are behaving as if it is. 

Oh here we go..  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

30 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You clearly understand nothing at all about Brexit. Just Google brexit+Cambridge analytica+electoral commission. That should fill in the gaps. 

Our government is behaving as if the crimes of Vote Leave just did not happen. Also, the referendum is not binding, but our political leaders are behaving as if it is. 

Spocky,

The only things I’ve seen about Brexit are

1. Surprise that leave won

2. The difficulty in actually making Brexit happen

3. The possibility of a second referendum to undo Brexit.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, the “Fallacy of relative privation”, for the win?  This is a “whataboutism” argument at its finest.  If “whataboutism” doesn’t work for Trumpanistas when they throw “whatabout her emails???” Every time someone demonstrates Trump’s illegalities why is “whataboutism” a legitimate way to attack someone who is concerned about Maduro’s Government in Venezuala?

Why isn’t it fair to ask why someone who is persistent in foreign militarily intervention  in x bad country supposedly out of concern out of humanity, why they aren’t similarly disposed for military intervention in another bad country with human rights concerns plaguing it?

Like if someone is praising Bolsonaro, yet the same time saying there must be intervention in Venezuela to protect the oppressed, I think it’s only right to ask them why the double standard. 

Like should we just ignore all the back actors, (who do happened to have more friendly relations with the US) across the world stage who are generally given a free pass, and take it the only interest countries have in Venezuela is mostly “concern” for the oppressed, and not raise the possibility that there is less than benign concern fueling these cries?

I don’t think so. 

I think not raising the discrepancy helps allow those looking to exploit poor countries, to remain in a dangerous position to where they could accomplish their goals.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why isn’t it fair to ask why someone who is persistent in foreign militarily intervention  in x bad country supposedly out of concern out of humanity, why they aren’t similarly disposed for military intervention in another bad country with human rights concerns plaguing it?

Like if someone is praising Bolsonaro, yet the same time saying there must be intervention in Venezuela to protect the oppressed, I think it’s only right to ask them why the double standard. 

Like should we just ignore all the back actors, (who do happened to have more friendly relations with the US) across the world stage who are generally given a free pass, and take it the only interest countries have in Venezuela is mostly “concern” for the oppressed, and not raise the possibility that there is less than benign concern fueling these cries?

I don’t think so. 

I think not raising the discrepancy allows all those looking to exploit poor countries, to remain in a dangerous position to where they could accomplish their goals.

That really is the “Fallacy of Relative Privation”.  I do not favor foreign intervention in Venezuala.  That said, if someone does, are you really saying that unless all “bad” government actors are dealt with simultaneously, all attempts to take out a single bad actor are invalid and suspect?

That’s why “Relative Privation” is a fallacious.  Dealing with a problem is not invalid if you are not simultaneously dealing with all problems.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That really is the “Fallacy of Relative Privation”.  I do not favor foreign intervention in Venezuala.  That said, if someone does, are you really saying that unless all “bad” government actors are dealt with simultaneously, all attempts to take out a single bad actor are invalid and suspect?

That’s why “Relative Privation” is a fallacious.  Dealing with a problem is not invalid if you are not simultaneously dealing with all problems.

I'm saying there's a clear hypocrisy in terms of when people think Human rights violations warrant military intervention, that should be noted. When an authoraian is massacring his people, and he's the US' ally or works with powerful people in it, the prospect of removing him is not generally widely  floated around by politicians in the US. I'm not going to pretend when men like John Bolton,who defend Saudi-Arabia when they kill Journalists and, say they want to Maduro out because of human rights violations they actually care about human rights violations. Human rights abuses are only a big problem when it's country's enemies doing.  Yes, a lot of the prime pushers for military intervention  is suspect when they only bring up the human suffering within a country  when they clearly stand to gain from a regime change. I'm not buying all the neocons and war-Hawks, and other Authoraian who are pushing the US and other countries to militaryly intervene actually care about humans as more than a tool to lull the public into funding their wars. 

If they genuinely believed in human right abuses being enough to intercede then they'd be consistent and not only tar

You seem to just want to ignore these inconsistencies and act as though all people in power pushing for military intervention are doing it for their professed care for Humanity. 

Take Trump's word he cares about Venezulelans when he's praising  dictators that stand to benefit him as being tough or hard working.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm saying there's a clear hypocrisy in terms of when people think Human rights violations warrant military intervention, that should be noted. When an authoraian is massacring his people, and he's the US' ally or works with powerful people in it, the prospect of removing him is not generally widely  floated around by politicians in the US. I'm not going to pretend when men like John Bolton,who defend Saudi-Arabia when they kill Journalists and, say they want to Maduro out because of human rights violations they actually care about human rights violations. Human rights abuses are only a big problem when it's country's enemies doing.  Yes, a lot of the prime pushers for military intervention  is suspect when they only bring up the human suffering within a country  when they clearly stand to gain from a regime change. I'm not buying all the neocons and war-Hawks, and other Authoraian who are pushing the US and other countries to militaryly intervene actually care about humans as more than a tool to lull the public into funding their wars. 

If they genuinely believed in human right abuses being enough to intercede then they'd be consistent and not only tar

You seem to just want to ignore these inconsistencies and act as though all people in power pushing for military intervention are doing it for their professed care for Humanity. 

Take Trump's word he cares about Venezulelans when he's praising  dictators that stand to benefit him as being tough or hard working.

 

Upon what do you base any assumption that I am a supporter of Donald Trump?

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Upon what do you base any assumption that I am a supporter of Donald Trump?

You support his sanctions. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Spockydog said:

You support his sanctions. 

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.  Any intervention beyond sanctions is beyond the pale in my view.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Upon what do you base any assumption that I am a supporter of Donald Trump?

I did not say you were a Trump supporter. I argued  you might as well believe Trump, actually cares about Venezuelans even though  he’s praised vile dictators for being things like tough, and hard working guys.

Because you don’t want to look at the inconsistencies in rhetoric, and actions concerning in many of the prime pushers for military intervention Venezuela .

Its ok if they actively  support/defend/excuse  horrific Authoritarians, like the Saudis, Bolsonaro, and whole heap of other undesirable(people not opposed to their interests) and only speak about intervening to protect  human rights abuses when it benefits their country or themselves in some way. 

They should be given the benefit of the doubt, and have their calls, assumed come from a true place of care, when the only human rights abuses they talk about is that of their enemies. 

Seriously, it sounds like you’d oppose saying “What about the arms deals to the Saudis” when the US fully turns its eye on conquering Cuba again off the pretext of “protecting liberty” and “defending human rights”.

Like whenever a government is using the idea of “protecting the people”  as a basis for conquering/intervening in a foreign country, the government’s own massive human rights abuses, support for horrific regimes in other countries should just never be commented on.

It’s wrong for democrats point out the Right’s hypocrisy on grilling Hillary for her emails, when Powell gets off scot free for his use of a private email while Secretary of State.  

This inconsistency doesn’t matter. It’s a “deflection to point it out supposedly. 

[Spockydog]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.  Any intervention beyond sanctions is beyond the pale in my view.

Beyond the pale, in my view, are people who claim to be Social Justice Warriors whilst openly supporting brutal economic sanctions imposed upon millions of innocent people by corrupt, imperialist dictators.

 

[Zorral]

Donald Trump has exhibited zero and sub zero interest in anything except HIMSELF, ever, in his entire history.  Compassion, empathy, sympathy -- do not exist in him.  It's ALL ABOUT HIM.  (And whomever catches his attention long enough to get him to do what they want, like the Boltanaros etc.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Beyond the pale, in my view, are people who claim to be Social Justice Warriors whilst openly supporting brutal economic sanctions imposed upon millions of innocent people by corrupt, imperialist dictators.

 

Okay.  I believe soft power applications of power proper ways to deal with dictators like Maduro.  You certainly disagree.

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Donald Trump has exhibited zero and sub zero interest in anything except HIMSELF, ever, in his entire history.  Compassion, empathy, sympathy -- do not exist in him.  It's ALL ABOUT HIM.  (And whomever catches his attention long enough to get him to do what they want, like the Boltanaros etc.)

He and his ilk are responsible for atrocities far worse than anything Maduro is supposed to have done.

 

[House Balstroko]

8 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Nope, i just find that this obsession with venezuela and intervention to be strange. And to point out that, this policy of interventions is not aplicable on a global capacity. And when it has been applied it almost always works in favor of the intervining power at an incredible high cost of the people being intervined, and that it makes thing much worse for them. 

And pointing out (suspected) fallacies is an easy way of not addresing the point i was trying to make. That is, the obsession with Venezuela of mostly american  people. 

No, it’s good that you question the moral relativism at play here. Targeting Venezuela, while ignoring other despots is certainly a valid point. I’ve said it before, that I strongly oppose any military campaign as that only helps Maduro’s cause. Certainly having Bolton throw his weight around does little to alleviate the problem.

At the same time, I also believe that Maduro will hide behind the pretext of an American invasion in order to consolidate his power, regardless of whether it plays out. Therefore, he will never step down. He will just keep on claiming that the opposition is working with foreign agents. Ultimately, he will always end up coming off as the savior of the Bolivarian revolution, the guy standing up to imperialism. Unfortunately, I see it more as an attempt to stay in power. 

Here’s what a Colombian guy said:

the level of education among Latin Americans is quite poor. There's poor knowledge of basic economy concepts and how the global economy has been developing in the last decades; there's a lot of "caudillismo" (the idea that some hero is gonna fix it all and defeat the evil, imperialists and oligarchs), and there's the victim complex which is pretty common among us.

the economic policies that the Latin American left stand for, even today (import substitution industrialization, getting into debts beyond any limits, etc), were the cause of the worst economic crisis in the region in decades, the Latin American debt crisis, or "La década perdida".

[Spockydog]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay.  I believe soft power applications of power proper ways to deal with dictators like Maduro.  You certainly disagree.

You fucking bet I disagree.

Soft power? Tell that to the parents whose children are dying because they are unable to access essential medications. Or what about the estimated 10% of Venezuelans who have been forced to flee their homes since the CIA started fucking things up? Gee, Scot, won't you say a prayer for the countless Venezuelan mothers separated from their children at the US border because they had no choice but to flee the social and economic chaos inflicted upon their country by your leaders.

The lack of (national) self awareness on display in this thread is absolutely staggering.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You fucking bet I disagree.

Soft power? Tell that to the parents whose children are dying because they are unable to access essential medications. Or what about the estimated 10% of Venezuelans who have been forced to flee their homes since the CIA started fucking things up? Gee, Scot, won't you say a prayer for the countless Venezuelan mothers separated from their children at the US border because they had no choice but to flee the social and economic chaos inflicted upon their country by your leaders.

The lack of (national) self awareness on display in this thread is absolutely staggering.

I’ve been speaking out on the bullshit Trump has been pulling on the border, here and elsewhere.  That you didn’t see me do it does not make your allegation factual.  Economic refugees are just as entitled to protection as everyone else.

[Spockydog]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve been speaking out on the bullshit Trump has been pulling on the border, here and elsewhere.  That you didn’t see me do it does not make your allegation factual.  Economic refugees are just as entitled to protection as everyone else.

Right, let me get this straight. You want me to give you credit for condemning some of the most despicable and heartbreaking consequences of a policy you continue to openly support?

Scot, sanctions kill. Every decent human being should be against them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Right, let me get this straight. You want me to give you credit for condemning some of the most despicable and heartbreaking consequences of a policy you continue to openly support?

Scot, sanctions kill. Every decent human being should be against them.

So, sanctions are off the table in your view when dictatorial regimes behave like dictatorial regimes?  When dictatorial regimes arise how do you propose to treat with them?

[House Balstroko]

19 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You fucking bet I disagree.

Soft power? Tell that to the parents whose children are dying because they are unable to access essential medications. Or what about the estimated 10% of Venezuelans who have been forced to flee their homes since the CIA started fucking things up? Gee, Scot, won't you say a prayer for the countless Venezuelan mothers separated from their children at the US border because they had no choice but to flee the social and economic chaos inflicted upon their country by your leaders.

The lack of (national) self awareness on display in this thread is absolutely staggering.

For the record, most Venezuelan refugees are actually in neighbouring Brazil and Colombia and they certainly have a different story to tell. Why are the children of Chavez and Maduro living like kings if the situation is so dire? 

Its high time that the local government accept the fact that it’s messed up the economy instead of hiding behind a foreign pretext.