[Beren]

Why do you feel the need to crush the political system in Iran? This is what I'm talking about, why the desire to change other peoples political systems and cultures? This is basically the same what the Canadian government did here in Saudi Arabia, it wanted to change Saudi culture and system of governance more in accordance with their own.

I don't feel the need to crush the political system in Iran, I just will be jubilant when it happens, which is my own private issue. Why do you feel the need to interfere with my own private issues? The only problem with what the Canadian government did is that they didn't do it professionally. It was like a girl standing up against a high school bully for her BFF.

[Oxymandias]

@Beren

I'm not proposing anything. There are common standards in the EU, not just legal but political, economic, social, moral, etc. too, and it is criticised for it all the time. EU-members don't have to be the same though. They don't have to speak the same language, the don't have to eat the same breakfast, and they don't have to drink the same drinks, of course.

You have literally stated that people shouldn't be able to live under any moral system they want, even if it doesn't hurt anyone else, and that globalization will unite everyone with a single legal system and into a single entity. I have argued that by stating people can't live under any system of morality they want, you are saying that people can't value anything they want, and ergo, people can't think about anything they want.

These standards certainly aren't as all-encompassing as you think they are. They don't dominate other governments or systems and replace them. They may be restrictive but they certainly aren't as restrictive as you make it out to be. The reason why the EU seems so restrictive to it's members is because their members still see themselves as independent countries who have sovereignty. If an expansion of the EU (what I am proposing) was implemented as the government of a country, that would work because provinces or states don't have sovereignty nor would they become powerful enough to attain sovereignty.

And I don't care if people tolerating the idea of a Nazi society think I'm no better than Nazis. I really wonder, by the way, how much time is left until globalisation is crushing the bullshit system there is Iran, but I'll be jubilant when it happens.

1. I have stated before that, under such a system, Nazis would be rendered powerless. The point is not to protect Nazis, the point is to encourage free experimentation with different forms of governance and society. The goal is to get the best parts of diversity without the bad parts of it (i.e. fascists, Nazis, etc.).

2. Globalization isn't an all-encompassing force capable of destroying political systems. In any case, the current corrupt political system of Iran would thrive under globalization since globalization rewards those with power while it kills off those without. Iran's political system will survive under globalization. Only without intense liberalization can a country change and develop. In any case, I am happy for the sanctions because they encourage Iran to be self-sufficient and they place pressure upon the existing government to be more accountable and less corrupt.

[Beren]

You have literally stated that people shouldn't be able to live under any moral system they want, even if it doesn't hurt anyone else, and that globalization will unite everyone with a single legal system and into a single entity.

Which is an opinion, not a proposal. I didn't say there will be a single legal system and a single entity, I said "There must be global standards and mutual compatibility, no one can have just whatever legal, social or moral system they wish for." And that's how the EU is.

These standards certainly aren't as all-encompassing as you think they are. They don't dominate other governments or systems and replace them. They may be restrictive but they certainly aren't as restrictive as you make it out to be.

I just didn't mean to say what you seem to believe I did. I remember how harmonisation of law went between Hungary and the EU while they were negotiating the country's joining to the EU, we had to accept their rules basically. And it's a common experience within the EU how strictly they mean to enforce common rules and values. The EU is not what it was supposed to be, by the way, Hungary couldn't have even joined as it is today.

[Saeko]

@Oxymandias what you're proposing is not a legal system. It is, in effect, a return to feudalism.

If the state is required to resolve conflicts between various legal systems under its jurisdiction, then your whole proposal is incoherent as now you have a universalist legal system.

[Oxymandias]

Which is an opinion, not a proposal. I didn't say there will be a single legal system and a single entity, I said "There must be global standards and mutual compatibility, no one can have just whatever legal, social or moral system they wish for."

It's same thing.

Regardless, I don't see how you have a problem with me exploring the political implications of your political opinion on a political forum. That is, unless you don't have a problem and I have just been misreading the tone of your posts.

I just didn't mean to say what you seem to believe I did. I remember how "legal harmonisation" went between Hungary and the EU while they were negotiating the country's joining to the EU, we had to accept their rules basically. And it's a common experience within the EU how strictly they mean to enforce common rules and values. The EU is not what it was supposed to be, by the way, Hungary couldn't have even joined as it is today.

Then this is nothing like a polycentric legal system. Are the EU's laws proscriptive or prescriptive?

@Saeko

If the state is required to resolve conflicts between various legal systems under its jurisdiction, then your whole proposal is incoherent as now you have a universalist legal system.

Universalist legal systems are prescriptive not proscriptive. In other words, universalist legal systems state "Thou shall only" while this hypothetical state will state "Thou shalt not". Furthermore, this state won't be making a moral statement by applying a common law. It will only do so to prevent conflict between them. This isn't a moral stance as it is rooted in pragmatism.

Also, wasn't your argument that there is a universal morality? I never challenged that claim, I argued against your implication that there is a universal legal system.

[Beren]

It's same thing.

What's the same thing? Opinion and proposal? Or what I literally said and what you said I literally said? It's not the same in either case.

Then this is nothing like a polycentric legal system. Are the EU's laws proscriptive or prescriptive?

I don't know because law is not my profession, but there is EU law and there are common legal principles. The EU has its own parliament and court of justice as well.

[Saeko]

@Saeko

Universalist legal systems are prescriptive not proscriptive. In other words, universalist legal systems state "Thou shall only" while this hypothetical state will state "Thou shalt not". Furthermore, this state won't be making a moral statement by applying a common law. It will only do so to prevent conflict between them. This isn't a moral stance as it is rooted in pragmatism.

Also, wasn't your argument that there is a universal morality? I never challenged that claim, I argued against your implication that there is a universal legal system.

No. Universalist legal systems are those which claim to apply to all people everywhere. Prescription or proscription has nothing to do with it.

And no, my argument that is that if there is such a thing as justice at all, then it must be universalist (i.e. apply to all people everywhere).

[Albert]

No. Universalist legal systems are those which claim to apply to all people everywhere. Prescription or proscription has nothing to do with it.

And no, my argument that is that if there is such a thing as justice at all, then it must be universalist (i.e. apply to all people everywhere).

Perhaps justice is to have different legal systems that will govern different cultures and custom of this world.

[Beren]

Perhaps justice is to have different legal systems that will govern different cultures and custom of this world.

Justice would be if you could mate with Saeko, but there is no real justice in this world unfortunately.

[Oxymandias]

@Beren

What's the same thing? Opinion and proposal? Or what I literally said and what you said I literally said? It's not the same in either case.

Opinion and proposal. And I was joking. Sorry for my piss poor humor.

I don't know because law is not my profession, but there is EU law and there are common legal principles. The EU has its own parliament and court of justice as well.

I just read through it. Yup it's prescriptive. No wonder it's so strict.

@Saeko

No. Universalist legal systems are those which claim to apply to all people everywhere. Prescription or proscription has nothing to do with it.

Then no country in the world has a universalist legal system. It is impossible for a country to apply it's legal system to every one in the world.

And no, my argument that is that if there is such a thing as justice at all, then it must be universalist (i.e. apply to all people everywhere).

That isn't true. Justice isn't morality, it is merely the punishment for breaking that morality and it is just as nebulous as morality itself. People disagree on what is the right punishment for a criminal as much as they disagree on whether or not the criminal committing a crime in the first place. Justice, in other words, is a means to satisfy people's morality. As it stands, people are satisfied by different things therefore justice is subjective if not more so than morality.

@Albert

Albert, you hooking up with Saeko would be pedophilia. I'm pretty sure you're 16 or at least you act like it.

[Saeko]

[usermention=11611]Then no country in the world has a universalist legal system. It is impossible for a country to apply it's legal system to every one in the world.

No, a system is universalist if it aims to apply to everyone. It doesn't have to actually succeed.

That isn't true. Justice isn't morality, it is merely the punishment for breaking that morality and it is just as nebulous as morality itself. People disagree on what is the right punishment for a criminal as much as they disagree on whether or not the criminal committing a crime in the first place. Justice, in other words, is a means to satisfy people's morality. As it stands, people are satisfied by different things therefore justice is subjective if not more so than morality.

Wrong again. Justice is about principles such as that the punishment should fit the crime or that a person can only be held responsible for his own actions and so on.

Albert, you hooking up with Saeko would be pedophilia. I'm pretty sure you're 16 or at least you act like it.

Personally, I think it would be more like bestiality.

[Oxymandias]

@Saeko

No, a system is universalist if it aims to apply to everyone. It doesn't have to actually succeed.

I still stand by my statement. There is no country in the world that has a universalist legal system. Not even the US within it's constitution states so.

But I will concede that you are right. A universalist legal system doesn't have to succeed in it's aims to apply itself to every country. The UN is an example of this.

Wrong again. Justice is about principles such as that the punishment should fit the crime or that a person can only be held responsible for his own actions and so on.

Moral principles belong in the realm of morality. Justice isn't a moral principle.

Here it seems to me that you agree with me on what justice is. I stated, although more vaguely, that justice is about how someone compensate for the crime they have committed. The reason why criminals must provide compensation for the crime is because we won't be satisfied otherwise. The problem is that people are satisfied with different forms of compensation and this is why justice is as nebulous as morality. For example, one person might think that someone who steals something should be sent to jail and that would satisfy them while another person might think stealing requires the thief's hands to be cut off and only that would satisfy them. That was what I was trying to say the entire time.

Personally, I think it would be more like bestiality.

That begs the question of what animal Albert would be. I'm betting on duck. Albert would be a great duck.

[Godstud]

@Beren Even if Canada did it a bit informally, isn't Saudi Arabia's response just a bit melodramatic and over-the-top? You did note the "sanctions" did you not? Isn't that a complete over-reaction?

[Ter]

@Beren Even if Canada did it a bit informally, isn't Saudi Arabia's response just a bit melodramatic and over-the-top? You did note the "sanctions" did you not? Isn't that a complete over-reaction?

"a bit informally"
No I think Saudi Arabia reacted just fine to show PC Canada to kiss its big ass.
Canada knows how to stop these sanctions. Send that female minister of yours to Saudi Arabia with some shmattes on her head and let her grovel in front of the ruling Prince.
All will be well. Kiss (OK maybe not) and make up and be bestest friends again.

We have a saying in my home country : "Whose bread you eat that word you speak"

[colliric]

"a bit informally"
No I think Saudi Arabia reacted just fine to show PC Canada to kiss its big ass.
Canada knows how to stop these sanctions. Send that female minister of yours to Saudi Arabia with some shmattes on her head and let her grovel in front of the ruling Prince.
All will be well. Kiss (OK maybe not) and make up and be bestest friends again.

We have a saying in my home country : "Whose bread you eat that word you speak"

You are funny guy Ter, you have some funny views on things sometimes. She doesn't need to do that.

Spoiler: show

now suggest me some Jewish movies in my "Jewish Films" thread damn you!

[Godstud]

@Ter You're funny when you say stupid things about standing up for human rights. I'm sorry you see PC as being anything but respectful to others, and having some human empathy, and compassion.

It hardly was worthy of the Saudi response. Their sanctions border on childish, and moronic. Canada's not going to grovel, nor should they. Saudi Arabia has more to lose than Canada does.

I'd like to see Canada appropriate Saudi property in Canada, as a response to Saudi Arabia's nonsense. See how well that goes over...

[Rich]

First off lets dispose of the nonsense. This cretinous nonsense that Osama Bin Laden was able to wage war against the United States from Taliban territory for five years without the approval of the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi monarchy. Whether the Saudi King or even the senior ISI knew the specific details of the planned attacks is doubtful. The Saudis and the Pakistanis knew what a pathetic bunch of cowardly cucks the American people and government were (Western Europeans are even worse). They believed quite correctly that non Government "terrorist" groups could be used to increase western dependence on the Pakistani and Saudi governments and get the sanctions against Pakistan lifted.

Regime change in Iraq was a brilliant idea, of which I'm deeply proud to have been one of its earliest advocates. One unexpected result though was that, although Saudi cooperation with the invasion was kept to a minimum, it still enraged Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda stupidly started making attacks against Saudi Arabia. It was this that caused the break with Al Qaeda. Zawahiri recognised this mistake which is why Bin Laden was given up to the Americans by the him and the ISI.

Zionist Jewish supremacists love Saudi because they see it as a counter to Iran. So they will make constant excuses for why we should carry on our pathetic cuck behaviour towards Saudi.

[Beren]

Personally, I think it would be more like bestiality.

You mean Albert is the best?

@Beren Even if Canada did it a bit informally, isn't Saudi Arabia's response just a bit melodramatic and over-the-top? You did note the "sanctions" did you not? Isn't that a complete over-reaction?

Canada did it a bit arrogantly, with which they did themselves and those they wanted to help more harm than good. Saudi Arabia's response seems an overreaction, they must be really frustrated by Western governments still pushing them around, although they even let their women drive now.

[skinster]

Ter defending the regime of Saudi Arabia is too much.

I suppose he's not alone:

A reminder that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state. This week it bombed a bus full of Yemeni children, killing 29 and after, Saudi spokesatan stated the bus bombing was a legitimate target. When not bombing children and wedding parties, crucifying people etc., Saudi Arabia has been starving/genociding the people of Yemen over the last 3 years, people, like the people of Gaza, who have nowhere to run to besides maybe the ocean where they can drown to death instead of die from starvation or bombs.

Canada isn't some kind of liberal utopia either, it's been selling weapons to the butchers in Saudi Arabia for years.

At worst, the Saudi's where negligent in trying to crack down on terrorist type activity. I simply just isn't in the interest of the Saudi's to hurt great business relations with the US.

What are you talking about? The Saudis have been funding Islamist terror within the Middle East and around the world for decades; the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS are the most popular terrorist groups, all have worked with your government at one time or another.

9/11 was big business for weapons manufacturers and oil companies and loads of brand new fucked up organizations that were wastefully created because of that terrorist attack (read Jim Risen's Pay Any Price for the details). 9/11 for the Saudis and neocons was and continues to be very lucrative.

[Oxymandias]

Why does this forum suddenly love Saudi Arabia? It isn't even the conservatives, it's also the liberals as well.