Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Economic Sanctions

idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm working on my negative debate case for the January/February LD resolution, and I'm having a really hard time. I was just wondering, in your opinion, why are economic sanctions moral? And cite your sources, if you can. I'm not asking for you to write my case. I just needed some help. Thanks! (:
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:47:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They aren't.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:50:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Economic sanctions are immoral because for the same reason that beseiging a walled town and preventing food from getting is immoral.

Sanctions against Iraq killed up to a million children*, we therefore killed civilians for the sins of their regime, the very definition of terrorism.

*According to the WHO.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:55:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let's say Iran's government is about to step up the killings of infidels at a higher pace, with a remarkably efficient chemical compound that requires copper to manufacture.

Should people be allowed to export copper to Iran?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement? Also, what could the tagline be for Contention 2 (I've already spoken about targeted sanctions in my Contention 3)? Again, thanks so much for the help. You guys are great. (:
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?
No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 8:55:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You want to start off with a C1 that targeted/smart sanctions are good and a framework which states that the Neg burden is to show that sanctions CAN be used, not MUST in all situations. Then you can go C2/3 about impacts, but always start by laying the foundation.

Sanctions vs. War can be a compelling argument - you can probably put lots of bodies on the flow there.

Remember to show that sanctions are evolving to become more efficient. Criticizing the sanctions of the 1950s is like criticizing medicine for the practice of bleeding. Provide historical examples. War as foreign policy sucked until the 1500s when people no longer fought in towns or villages but in the neighboring fields to minimize collateral damage. Today's smart weapons provide even more targeted measures.

Even diplomacy through negotiation was useless until 1814 and the Congress of Vienna. Until that point, countries essentially had international shouting matches and then escalated to war. The Congress of Vienna symbolized the first time that countries made large-scale concessions and truly worked together to create a lasting peace (which went on until 1914 and WWI).

Sanctions should also be given the same chance.

Ask in CX: If heart surgery success rate fell below a certain percentage should we abandon it completely?
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 9:42:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Sometimes it's hard to tell what side you're on dude.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 10:40:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Nothing but war is morally permissible or acceptable because war allows for the continuation of the state. The same goes for sanctions.

Killing is not moral but it is once again a necessary evil.

One at times must take away liberties and keep the state in mind.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 11:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 10:40:02 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Nothing but war is morally permissible or acceptable because war allows for the continuation of the state.
Infinite war defeats the entire point of a state-- which is to win wars, put an end to them, and scare off future challengers as best it can.


Killing is not moral but it is once again a necessary evil.
Necessary evil is a contradiction. If something achieves the goals on which your morality is based it is moral. If it acts counter to them it is immoral and it is necessary to put a stop to them.


One at times must take away liberties and keep the state in mind.
To what purpose by what standard?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 4:44:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:55:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Let's say Iran's government is about to step up the killings of infidels at a higher pace, with a remarkably efficient chemical compound that requires copper to manufacture.

Should people be allowed to export copper to Iran?

That would be a 'smart sanction' a marked change in policy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 4:45:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?
No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.

Beats the alternative.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 7:24:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 11:05:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 10:40:02 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Nothing but war is morally permissible or acceptable because war allows for the continuation of the state.
Infinite war defeats the entire point of a state-- which is to win wars, put an end to them, and scare off future challengers as best it can.


Killing is not moral but it is once again a necessary evil.
Necessary evil is a contradiction. If something achieves the goals on which your morality is based it is moral. If it acts counter to them it is immoral and it is necessary to put a stop to them.


One at times must take away liberties and keep the state in mind.
To what purpose by what standard?

I haven't seen an infinite war before, provide one and we shall discuss your point as being valid.

Necessary evil may be contridactory in the statement itself but in actually it must occur and does occur.

You should do all that is necessary to avoid war and killing but when it is necessary you must do it.

By the standard of when the state is threatened an to protect the state itself.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 8:00:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 10:40:02 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Nothing but war is morally permissible or acceptable because war allows for the continuation of the state.

1984 never gave a reason for why the government did what they did, neither have you.

How is it that morality can place "the state" before so many other things of moral importance. Is there any good reason for placing the state first.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 8:01:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
1984 never gave a reason for why the government did what they did, neither have you.
eh, I think they said for power, but that's hardly a coherent moral explanation.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 8:07:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That would be a 'smart sanction' a marked change in policy.
From which sanction?

Do sanctions still stop food exports? since people need food for soldiers in the real world. Or did they puss out of that?

At 2/1/2010 4:45:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?
No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.

Beats the alternative.

Um, the alternative to calling something you need a government for "peaceful" is being honest.

I haven't seen an infinite war before,
I.e. a world in which no state of affairs distinguishable from war exists, i.e. your "nothing but war."

Necessary evil may be contridactory in the statement itself but in actually it must occur and does occur.
A contradiction cannot exist in reality. If you believe you have found one check your premises.

You should do all that is necessary to avoid war and killing but when it is necessary you must do it.
Necessary for what purpose?

By the standard of when the state is threatened an to protect the state itself.
What if it's a bad state?
And one should never kill at other times?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 8:09:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 11:05:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 10:40:02 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 1/31/2010 9:19:14 PM, banker wrote:
I am not going to say anything new here,but is so ironic I can't ignore it.?
What part about a war is moral.? But could we have freedom with out bieng ready for it.?
If we ever had liberty was it able to get if you would not be ready to die for it.? Is killing moral.?

Nothing but war is morally permissible or acceptable because war allows for the continuation of the state.
Infinite war defeats the entire point of a state-- which is to win wars, put an end to them, and scare off future challengers as best it can.
I would also like a response to this, wonderwoman.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 1:43:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 8:07:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That would be a 'smart sanction' a marked change in policy.
From which sanction?

Do sanctions still stop food exports? since people need food for soldiers in the real world. Or did they puss out of that?

An army fights on it's stomach, not with it's stomach.


At 2/1/2010 4:45:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?
No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.

Beats the alternative.

Um, the alternative to calling something you need a government for "peaceful" is being honest.


Yes because in the absence of Government human nature is reversed. Honestly, you can be so hard nosed and cynical and at the same time you have your head in the clouds.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 2:16:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 1:43:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/1/2010 8:07:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That would be a 'smart sanction' a marked change in policy.
From which sanction?

Do sanctions still stop food exports? since people need food for soldiers in the real world. Or did they puss out of that?

An army fights on it's stomach, not with it's stomach.
Okay, so I see you CAN have starving soldiers fight-- or even live.




At 2/1/2010 4:45:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?

No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.

Beats the alternative.

Um, the alternative to calling something you need a government for "peaceful" is being honest.


Yes because in the absence of Government human nature is reversed.
Who is talking about the absence? I'm not an anarchist dude. The point is that governments are by definition violent. That's why you have a government-- for warlike purposes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 1:30:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 8:07:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That would be a 'smart sanction' a marked change in policy.
From which sanction?

Do sanctions still stop food exports? since people need food for soldiers in the real world. Or did they puss out of that?

At 2/1/2010 4:45:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:34:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 8:06:26 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
So, for the negative case, we have to prove that economic sanctions are moral. For Contention 1, my tagline would be that economic sanctions are a peaceful and less costly alternative to war. Does anyone know of any websites that I could use to back up that statement?
No, but I'd just like to comment that calling anything you need a government for peaceful is absolutely freaking hilarious.

Beats the alternative.

Um, the alternative to calling something you need a government for "peaceful" is being honest.

I haven't seen an infinite war before,
I.e. a world in which no state of affairs distinguishable from war exists, i.e. your "nothing but war."

Necessary evil may be contridactory in the statement itself but in actually it must occur and does occur.
A contradiction cannot exist in reality. If you believe you have found one check your premises.

You should do all that is necessary to avoid war and killing but when it is necessary you must do it.
Necessary for what purpose?

By the standard of when the state is threatened an to protect the state itself.
What if it's a bad state?
And one should never kill at other times?

Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state? You live there and are sthus subject to that state.

Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory

At all cost war must be avoided, but when necessary it must be used.

"War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms."

"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 9:19:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state?
I do with my rational faculty by reference to goals.

You live there and are sthus subject to that state.
What's your point?


Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.
So you're saying it was immoral to stop the holocaust?

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory
Yes, it is.

A batch of quotes won't save you. You can either maintain that war is inherently evil or it isn't, not that it is a "necessary evil." Personally, I don't hold that it is-- it is a moral good if it eliminates the correct variety of people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1stLordofTheVenerability
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 2:07:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:50:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Economic sanctions are immoral because for the same reason that beseiging a walled town and preventing food from getting is immoral.

Sanctions against Iraq killed up to a million children*, we therefore killed civilians for the sins of their regime, the very definition of terrorism.

*According to the WHO.

So you support an all out war, instead? One where innocents might get caught in crossfire between armies? Or will you just blithely give to the enemies and support them as you are attacked?
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 1:55:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 9:19:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state?
I do with my rational faculty by reference to goals.

You live there and are sthus subject to that state.
What's your point?


Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.
So you're saying it was immoral to stop the holocaust?

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory
Yes, it is.

A batch of quotes won't save you. You can either maintain that war is inherently evil or it isn't, not that it is a "necessary evil." Personally, I don't hold that it is-- it is a moral good if it eliminates the correct variety of people.

Depends, would stopping the holocaust ultimtely save or protect my state better than not stopping it.

It is a permissible evil. i.e. a necessary evil. If that be the case war is moral when used appropriately and when it can protect the state.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 1:57:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 1:55:09 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 2/2/2010 9:19:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state?
I do with my rational faculty by reference to goals.

You live there and are sthus subject to that state.
What's your point?


Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.
So you're saying it was immoral to stop the holocaust?

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory
Yes, it is.

A batch of quotes won't save you. You can either maintain that war is inherently evil or it isn't, not that it is a "necessary evil." Personally, I don't hold that it is-- it is a moral good if it eliminates the correct variety of people.

Depends, would stopping the holocaust ultimtely save or protect my state
"Your?" state?
The holocaust is an inherent part of the programme of the nazi state, without which it cannot exist. Dunno what makes the state yours

It is a permissible evil. i.e. a necessary evil.
And a square triangle too?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1stLordofTheVenerability
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 6:36:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 1:57:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/3/2010 1:55:09 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 2/2/2010 9:19:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state?
I do with my rational faculty by reference to goals.

You live there and are sthus subject to that state.
What's your point?


Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.
So you're saying it was immoral to stop the holocaust?

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory
Yes, it is.

A batch of quotes won't save you. You can either maintain that war is inherently evil or it isn't, not that it is a "necessary evil." Personally, I don't hold that it is-- it is a moral good if it eliminates the correct variety of people.

Depends, would stopping the holocaust ultimtely save or protect my state
"Your?" state?
The holocaust is an inherent part of the programme of the nazi state, without which it cannot exist. Dunno what makes the state yours

It is a permissible evil. i.e. a necessary evil.
And a square triangle too?

So you condone the Evil of the Holocaust? The rascism, genocide, torture, brutality etc only because it "aided the Nazi state" ? The Holocaust, genocide in general, is never a permissible evil. It is a war crime - it can never be justified or 'permissible'. It is also irrelevant to war, since it was a sole campaign by the Nazi Party to exterminate the 'weaker races'. It was dishonourable and not required for the war.
dartmouthlder
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 6:43:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
just take the approach that economic sanctions help preserve future generations, societal wellfare, & national security- or I was actually looking at nationalism as a value, but when I've debated this I used Nt'l Security upheld with Realism.
Sanctions force nations that are under them to become independent and increase allies and trading partners. Sanctions also are the best alternative to warfare, and they help get rid of immoral governments, nuclear proliferation, as well as provide incentives for the sanctioned nation once the sanction is lifted- generally because FPO's are achieved. I suggest looking at the Libyan Sanctions from the Security Council- after the success of these sanctions, the Libyan Gov't got a seat on the council, thus proving that sanctions have bettered their community!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 11:11:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 6:36:36 AM, 1stLordofTheVenerability wrote:
At 2/3/2010 1:57:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/3/2010 1:55:09 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 2/2/2010 9:19:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who is to decide what is and is not a bad state?
I do with my rational faculty by reference to goals.

You live there and are sthus subject to that state.
What's your point?


Necessary for the continuation of the rule of the state or essentially power.
So you're saying it was immoral to stop the holocaust?

Nay, it is a contridication in diction but a necessary evil being acted upon is itself not contridicatory
Yes, it is.

A batch of quotes won't save you. You can either maintain that war is inherently evil or it isn't, not that it is a "necessary evil." Personally, I don't hold that it is-- it is a moral good if it eliminates the correct variety of people.

Depends, would stopping the holocaust ultimtely save or protect my state
"Your?" state?
The holocaust is an inherent part of the programme of the nazi state, without which it cannot exist. Dunno what makes the state yours

It is a permissible evil. i.e. a necessary evil.
And a square triangle too?

So you condone the Evil of the Holocaust? The rascism, genocide, torture, brutality etc only because it "aided the Nazi state" ? The Holocaust, genocide in general, is never a permissible evil. It is a war crime - it can never be justified or 'permissible'. It is also irrelevant to war, since it was a sole campaign by the Nazi Party to exterminate the 'weaker races'. It was dishonourable and not required for the war.

Are you asking me or wonderwoman?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.