Are you critical or negative about the United States of America? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Are you negative or critical of the United States of America?

Yes, I am negative or critical of the United States of America
22
65%
No, I am not negative or critical of the United States of America
4
12%
I am neither negative nor positive about the United States of America
8
24%
#15191326
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

viewtopic.php?p=15191314#p15191291
viewtopic.php?p=15191314#p15191170
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=180977&start=40#p15191156
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=180977&start=40#p15191137

These posts all explain that your argument is nothing more than an attempt to justify US human rights abuses because “what about the ebil socilsists!!1!”.


Mostly silly arguments for the most part, and I can quote you justifying Cuban human rights abuses using exactly the same reasoning:

Me, mentioning some examples of how the opposition is repressed in Cuba wrote:I can think of a few ways in which measures are taken against the opposition:

1. Civil Rights: Censorship of opposing media, no permission for assembly for opponents, no permission for people who aren't members of the Party to compete in elections, longer processing to get permits to move to other parts of the country and to perform tasks like getting married
2. Economic Rights: Firing of people who protest the regime, limitations on what kind of jobs political opponents can do within the civilian economy
3. Social Rights: Limitations to access higher education and other social services


This was your response:

Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, 2 and 3 are also common in capitalist countries including the USA. Cuba probably provides better access to PSE than many developed countries and its neighbours.

The first one is more problematic because of continued US interventions. It would be difficult to allow a free press when the CIA is known for making deals with newspapers to help overthrow local governments. Like El Mercurio.

The same with multi-party elections. Classic regime change tool for the CIA.


So you tell me, why would I care about your whining regarding US foreign policy again? You are the one who regards multi-party elections as a regime change tool for the CIA.

Your negative stance about the USA seems to be driven by the fact that your side lost and not a genuine concern about human rights, democracy or any of that nonsense.

You may wonder why would the USA be any better, then. I'll tell you: Firstly, the USA did not start that game of toppling multi-party democracies, the Soviets and their local proxies did in Czechoslovakia and as such the precedent that this was going to be how would the Cold War work was set by your camp - saying the US shouldn't carry out analogous actions to stop this kind of thing from happening elsewhere is like those silly arch-pacifists who believe it was immoral for the Allies to fight the Nazis because "war is bad". If you believe communists should rule the world then just say it outright as others do.

And secondly, you get far more freedoms and respect for your rights in the USA than there were in any of the regimes you supported (and seemingly still support). This is despite the fact that other countries with an political and economic system that's similar to that of the US may do even better, which is of course arguable.

And no, no political or economic system is perfect just as no human construct is perfect either - so what? If anything the idea of having "a more perfect union", which implies the recognition that the union and its institutions are not perfect, is a show of humility you don't ever see in totalitarian regimes either.
#15191333
wat0n wrote:Mostly silly arguments for the most part, and I can quote you justifying Cuban human rights abuses using exactly the same reasoning:

This was your response:

So you tell me, why would I care about your whining regarding US foreign policy again?


To be honest, I have no idea why you care so much about my personal opinion. My personal hypocrisy, if it exists, is irrelevant.

You are the one who regards multi-party elections as a regime change tool for the CIA.

Your negative stance about the USA seems to be driven by the fact that your side lost and not a genuine concern about human rights, democracy or any of that nonsense.


So you think I am a hypocrite and… a supporter of dictatorships.

Again, my personal character is irrelevant. Feel free to assume whatever awful things about that you want.

You may wonder why would the USA be any better, then. I'll tell you: Firstly, the USA did not start that game of toppling multi-party democracies, the Soviets and their local proxies did in Czechoslovakia and as such the precedent that this was going to be how would the Cold War work was set by your camp - saying the US shouldn't carry out analogous actions to stop this kind of thing from happening elsewhere is like those silly arch-pacifists who believe it was immoral for the Allies to fight the Nazis because "war is bad". If you believe communists should rule the world then just say it outright as others do.


Again, this is not a refutation of US oppression in Latin America.

This is, at best, an attempt at justifying that oppression.

And secondly, you get far more freedoms and respect for your rights in the USA than there were in any of the regimes you supported (and seemingly still support). This is despite the fact that other countries with an political and economic system that's similar to that of the US may do even better, which is of course arguable.


The respect for human rights in the USA is theoretical or ideal. By that I mean that the citizens have a legal claim to certain rights but in practice, this is not often the case.

This is especially true if the US resident is not a citizen, or is not a cis hetero male, or is a member of the global majority (i.e. not white).

And no, no political or economic system is perfect just as no human construct is perfect either - so what? If anything the idea of having "a more perfect union", which implies the recognition that the union and its institutions are not perfect, is a show of humility you don't ever see in totalitarian regimes either.


So we should not criticise the USA?
#15191338
Pants-of-dog wrote:To be honest, I have no idea why you care so much about my personal opinion. My personal hypocrisy, if it exists, is irrelevant.


Because it's simply an example of moralizing.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think I am a hypocrite and… a supporter of dictatorships.

Again, my personal character is irrelevant. Feel free to assume whatever awful things about that you want.


Lack of consistency is relevant when you are trying to make a moralistic argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is not a refutation of US oppression in Latin America.

This is, at best, an attempt at justifying that oppression.


Or perhaps putting things into context, unless you believe the Allies shouldn't have fought the Nazis - in the way they actually did, which included deliberate attacks against civilians which the Nazis did at a much, much larger scale anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The respect for human rights in the USA is theoretical or ideal. By that I mean that the citizens have a legal claim to certain rights but in practice, this is not often the case.

This is especially true if the US resident is not a citizen, or is not a cis hetero male, or is a member of the global majority (i.e. not white).


The US is trying to improve the state of affairs in its country, and ironically noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in most of the rest of the world. Including each and every single remaining communist or Bolivarian socialist country, by the way.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we should not criticise the USA?


On the contrary, it's precisely through constructive criticism that things can be improved - something you can't do in plenty of countries -, and it's precisely why there's a recognition that the union needs to be more perfect.

That doesn't mean one should be negative about the USA, however.
#15191343
wat0n wrote:Because it's simply an example of moralizing.

Lack of consistency is relevant when you are trying to make a moralistic argument.


My claim was that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.

This appears to be a factual claim and not a moralistic argument.

Or perhaps putting things into context, unless you believe the Allies shouldn't have fought the Nazis - in the way they actually did, which included deliberate attacks against civilians which the Nazis did at a much, much larger scale anyway.


This seems irrelevant to my claim that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.

The US is trying to improve the state of affairs in its country,


No, not necessarily. Reproductive rights are being scaled back. State governments are actively trying to disenfranchise people of the global majority and the poor.

Again, you are taking the ideal and theoretical protection for rights and incorrectly assuming it is also practically true.

and ironically noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in most of the rest of the world. Including each and every single remaining communist or Bolivarian socialist country, by the way.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

On the contrary, it's precisely through constructive criticism that things can be improved - something you can't do in plenty of countries -, and it's precisely why there's a recognition that the union needs to be more perfect.

That doesn't mean one should be negative about the USA, however.


Then it is important to point out that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.
#15191349
Pants-of-dog wrote:My claim was that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.

This appears to be a factual claim and not a moralistic argument.


Nope, it is moralistic: Human rights themselves are an ethical construct.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems irrelevant to my claim that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.


But it's relevant to understand why did the US meddle and furthermore to keep in mind that human rights were being violated in the region with the support of several actors with opposing interests. Case in point, Cuba was propped up by the Soviets and their support was essential in sustaining the government there.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, not necessarily. Reproductive rights are being scaled back.


Not in all states, and those who want to get abortions can simply move to another state. Can Cubans freely leave the island?

Pants-of-dog wrote:State governments are actively trying to disenfranchise people of the global majority and the poor.


That's highly questionable and in any event there are several limitations to what they can do.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you are taking the ideal and theoretical protection for rights and incorrectly assuming it is also practically true.


On the contrary, what I'm doing is noting the fact that there is an effort to make that ideal protection for rights a reality. There is no such effort under the alternative system simply because they have no such ideal as plenty of human rights are not recognized.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


Do you want to go through reports about the human rights situation in Cuba or Venezuela? Or you'd rather compare the living standards in the US to those in Cuba in Venezuela?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is important to point out that the USA meddled in Latin America and it had negative impacts for the area in terms of human rights abuses.


Sure, and then it's also important to point out that it was part of a geopolitical conflict where the opposition also violated human rights - just as it's also important to point out the atrocities during WWII if one will want to make a point about a specific incident (say, Dresden).

Also, it should also be noted that the US did not in fact do that, their allied governments did. That's actually important as ultimately those were the result of the Latin American internal politics. This tendency of blaming the US for all of Latin America's problem is both tiring and pathetic.
#15191363
wat0n wrote:Nope, it is moralistic: Human rights themselves are an ethical construct.


…..

But it's relevant to understand why did the US meddle and furthermore to keep in mind that human rights were being violated in the region with the support of several actors with opposing interests. Case in point, Cuba was propped up by the Soviets and their support was essential in sustaining the government there.


Please provide evidence for this claim that the US meddled specifically because the Allies shouldn't have fought the Nazis - in the way they actually did, which included deliberate attacks against civilians which the Nazis did at a much, much larger scale anyway.

Not in all states, and those who want to get abortions can simply move to another state. Can Cubans freely leave the island?


I believe Cubans do not need to leave the island in order to get abortions.

That's highly questionable and in any event there are several limitations to what they can do.


Then provide evidence that the current wave of voting restrictions are not meant to restrict votes.

On the contrary, what I'm doing is noting the fact that there is an effort to make that ideal protection for rights a reality.


There is also the fact that there is an effort to stop people from making that ideal protection for rights a reality. And there is also the fact that there is an effort to take away the rights of others and actually worsen the human rights situation in the USA.

There is no such effort under the alternative system simply because they have no such ideal as plenty of human rights are not recognized.


…..

Do you want to go through reports about the human rights situation in Cuba or Venezuela? Or you'd rather compare the living standards in the US to those in Cuba in Venezuela?


Please provide evidence for this claim that noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in most of the rest of the world.

Please provide evidence for this claim that that noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than each and every single remaining communist or Bolivarian socialist country, by the way.

You are now arguing that the US human rights situation, and the living conditions in the USA are comparable to Cuba and Venezuela.

Sure, and then it's also important to point out that it was part of a geopolitical conflict where the opposition also violated human rights - just as it's also important to point out the atrocities during WWII if one will want to make a point about a specific incident (say, Dresden).

Also, it should also be noted that the US did not in fact do that, their allied governments did. That's actually important as ultimately those were the result of the Latin American internal politics. This tendency of blaming the US for all of Latin America's problem is both tiring and pathetic.


Please provide evidence for these claims.
#15191380
Pants-of-dog wrote:…..



Please provide evidence for this claim that the US meddled specifically because the Allies shouldn't have fought the Nazis - in the way they actually did, which included deliberate attacks against civilians which the Nazis did at a much, much larger scale anyway.


Guess your quoting got mixed up here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I believe Cubans do not need to leave the island in order to get abortions.


Instead, Cubans need to do that to get far more basic things like eating whatever they want for dinner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then provide evidence that the current wave of voting restrictions are not meant to restrict votes.


Or you could actually show that's their main goal, for a change.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There is also the fact that there is an effort to stop people from making that ideal protection for rights a reality. And there is also the fact that there is an effort to take away the rights of others and actually worsen the human rights situation in the USA.


Or maybe there is no agreement about what rights are part of that ideal protection (including, say, abortion), which again is a debate that people in Cuba or Venezuela are not allowed to have. And even in that case, often in the US you can move to a different state if you believe the one you currently live in should recognize some new right.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim that noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in most of the rest of the world.


Sure. Freedoms:

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

Living standards:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-h ... ex-ranking

Note of course non cishetero males and nonwhites are of course taken into account in both reports. Even more so since both make the majority of the population in each country.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim that that noncitizens, non-cishetero males and nonwhites have greater freedoms and higher living standards in the US than each and every single remaining communist or Bolivarian socialist country, by the way.


See the ranking above.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are now arguing that the US human rights situation, and the living conditions in the USA are comparable to Cuba and Venezuela.


...And the latter do far worse than the USA, in the same way one can compare the living standards in Ethiopia with those of Norway and make the call about where these are higher. Your point?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for these claims.


I'm not sure about what am I supposed to prove here. That the Latin American militaries that governed their countries under iron fist dictatorships 40+ years ago were Latin American? We already know that. I don't need to prove Latin American militaries are Latin American.
#15191416
America is a narcissistic nation. Narcissism verging on solipsism. This is perhaps not surprising given America's history. For so much of it they really didn't need the rest of the world. In WWI and WWII when they did join the party they hardly broke sweat. What is surprising or even shocking is how the rest of the world seems to have got absorbed into this American narcissism. Lefties who hate the united States are just as much caught up in this narcissism as right libertarians who idolise it. This is why:

American identities Matter

This of course completely messes with any sort of sane understanding of history. Because while morphological racism has been central to the United States through out its entire history until a few decades ago, morphological racism has been irrelevant for most of human existence. Human existence has been dominated by cultural racism and for the last few thousand years class racism.
#15191459
wat0n wrote:Guess your quoting got mixed up here.


No, that is what you wrote.

Yes, I also think your writing is unclear. Please rewrite your argument in a clear manner. Thank you.

Instead, Cubans need to do that to get far more basic things like eating whatever they want for dinner.


Ad hominem. Ignored.

I assume you are now conceding that in terms of reproductive rights, the USA is not as free as a dictatorship in the developing world.

Or you could actually show that's their main goal, for a change.


Please provide evidence that the current wave of voting restrictions are not meant to restrict votes.

Or maybe there is no agreement about what rights are part of that ideal protection (including, say, abortion), which again is a debate that people in Cuba or Venezuela are not allowed to have. And even in that case, often in the US you can move to a different state if you believe the one you currently live in should recognize some new right.


You are not contradicting the fact that large portions of the US public openly support the current lack of rights or even want to take away rights.

Instead, yiu are agreeing that this is the case and explaining why.

Sure. Freedoms:

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add this link again, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

Living standards:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-h ... ex-ranking


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add this link again, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

See the ranking above.


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

...And the latter do far worse than the USA, in the same way one can compare the living standards in Ethiopia with those of Norway and make the call about where these are higher. Your point?


You are the one who made the comparison, not me. So if you think this is a stupid comparison to make….

I'm not sure about what am I supposed to prove here. That the Latin American militaries that governed their countries under iron fist dictatorships 40+ years ago were Latin American? We already know that. I don't need to prove Latin American militaries are Latin American.


What is your claim here, then?
#15191460
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, that is what you wrote.

Yes, I also think your writing is unclear. Please rewrite your argument in a clear manner. Thank you.


If you have issues understanding analogies written in plain English, maybe you have no business being here.

But we both know that this is not what happened. What actually happened is that you got mad that you got reminded that you do support dictatorships and human rights violators when it suits you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ad hominem. Ignored.


Not really. Again, reading comprehension.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I assume you are now conceding that in terms of reproductive rights, the USA is not as free as a dictatorship in the developing world.


If abortion is the same as "reproductive rights" then it's actually freer than most of the Western world, including Europe. But as you correctly said, Cuba is still a dictatorship and aborting fetuses is nowhere comparable to having a right to express dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in your country - which is something Cubans do not have.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that the current wave of voting restrictions are not meant to restrict votes.


Nope, you are the one who has to prove the affirmative claim. The proponents of those laws will often claim other rationales to justify at least some measures that are similar to those used in other democracies, which shifts the burden of proof to you.

And again, it's still better than not being able to freely vote at all - again, something one cannot do in places like Cuba or Venezuela.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are not contradicting the fact that large portions of the US public openly support the current lack of rights or even want to take away rights.

Instead, yiu are agreeing that this is the case and explaining why.


And yet even the most regressive of those options are not as regressive as your proven stance on the denial of rights in Cuba.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add this link again, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


Nope, the evidence is plain for you to read. The issue is that you don't like the facts, which is a completely different matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are the one who made the comparison, not me. So if you think this is a stupid comparison to make….


Again, one can always compare Norway and Sudan in terms of living standards or freedoms and decide which one has the higher living standards and greater freedoms. The comparison is so simple that one shouldn't even need a report if one knows even a little bit about each society - exactly as it happens with the US and Cuba or some other communist dictatorship.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What is your claim here, then?


The repression was planned and executed by the Latin Americans themselves, in a time where human rights were not really a priority for large segments of Latin American societies (both in the left and the right), so it's about time we stop blaming others for that obvious fact.
#15191461
wat0n wrote:If you have issues understanding analogies written in plain English, maybe you have no business being here.

But we both know that this is not what happened. What actually happened is that you got mad that you got reminded that you do support dictatorships and human rights violators when it suits you.

Not really. Again, reading comprehension.


If you are not interested in writing your arguments clearly, then I am not going to decipher them for you.

If this was not an argument, but instead some personal attack against me, then it is irrelevant anyway,

If abortion is the same as "reproductive rights" then it's actually freer than most of the Western world, including Europe. But as you correctly said, Cuba is still a dictatorship and aborting fetuses is nowhere comparable to having a right to express dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in your country - which is something Cubans do not have.


I am not discussing Cuba, since this is not a thread about Cuba,

But as long as we agree that the US is less free than a supposed dictatorship in the developing world,

Nope, you are the one who has to prove the affirmative claim. The proponents of those laws will often claim other rationales to justify at least some measures that are similar to those used in other democracies, which shifts the burden of proof to you.

And again, it's still better than not being able to freely vote at all - again, something one cannot do in places like Cuba or Venezuela.


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

….personal attack…


As long as we agree that large parts of the US population are deliberately trying to take away or keep away rights from others.

Nope, the evidence is plain for you to read. The issue is that you don't like the facts, which is a completely different matter.


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

Again, one can always compare Norway and Sudan in terms of living standards or freedoms and decide which one has the higher living standards and greater freedoms. The comparison is so simple that one shouldn't even need a report if one knows even a little bit about each society - exactly as it happens with the US and Cuba or some other communist dictatorship.


Again, you made the comparison, not I. I happen to agree that the US is comparable to a developing country in terms of its freedoms and rights,

The repression was planned and executed by the Latin Americans themselves, in a time where human rights were not really a priority for large segments of Latin American societies (both in the left and the right), so it's about time we stop blaming others for that obvious fact.


Please provide evidence that the USA did not have a significant effect, then.
#15191465
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are not interested in writing your arguments clearly, then I am not going to decipher them for you.

If this was not an argument, but instead some personal attack against me, then it is irrelevant anyway,


It's relevant since you are making a moralistic argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing Cuba, since this is not a thread about Cuba,

But as long as we agree that the US is less free than a supposed dictatorship in the developing world,


I thought Cuba was an example to follow for the US and everyone else in your book - and indeed you seem to reaffirm so in your quip about reproductive rights, silly me ;)

And lol at "supposed".

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


And your dismissal is dismissed, so will you provide any evidence on your end to justify the disregard of information such as the UN Development Report?

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that large parts of the US population are deliberately trying to take away or keep away rights from others.


Only when you admit you want to take away and keep away far more fundamental rights from others, if they have the misfortune to be born in a communist country. I don't understand this silly obsession with fetuses among some people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you made the comparison, not I. I happen to agree that the US is comparable to a developing country in terms of its freedoms and rights,


Please show the reports that are claiming the human rights situation in the US is roughly the same as the human rights situation in Cuba or some of the other communist dictatorships.

Note that rankings are inherently comparing whatever is being ranked and global rankings compare between wildly different societies.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that the USA did not have a significant effect, then.


Actually it's the other way around, please provide evidence that the USA did have such an effect. The presumption lies on your end since the human rights violators were Latin American.
#15191466
wat0n wrote:It's relevant since you are making a moralistic argument.


Then what is the argument?

I thought Cuba was an example to follow for the US and everyone else in your book - and indeed you seem to reaffirm so in your quip about reproductive rights, silly me ;)

And lol at "supposed".


The USA has less freedom and less reproductive rights than a country you condemn as a dictatorship.

And your dismissal is dismissed, so will you provide any evidence on your end to justify the disregard of information such as the UN Development Report?


What is your argument?

Only when you admit you want to take away and keep away far more fundamental rights from others, if they have the misfortune to be born in a communist country. I don't understand this silly obsession with fetuses among some people.


Feel free to believe that about me.

The USA has large portions of the population keeping or taking away the rights of others.

Please show the reports that are claiming the human rights situation in the US is roughly the same as the human rights situation in Cuba or some of the other communist dictatorships.

Note that rankings are inherently comparing whatever is being ranked and global rankings compare between wildly different societies.


No, you made the comparison, not I.

Actually it's the other way around, please provide evidence that the USA did have such an effect. The presumption lies on your end since the human rights violators were Latin American.


No, you made the claim.

Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.
#15191467
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then what is the argument?


Your stated reason for being negative about the USA is hypocritical and dishonest since you are not negative about Cuba and other similar communist countries with far worse records.

I'm waiting for you to be honest about what your actual reason to be negative about the USA is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The USA has less freedom and less reproductive rights than a country you condemn as a dictatorship.


No, the USA doesn't have less freedom than Cuba. And what you consider as a "reproductive right", and seems to be equivalent to abortion in your view, is also more restrictive in Europe than in Cuba, it doesn't seem to be an USA thing.

This isn't even counting that for plenty of people an abortion is inherently taking the rights of another person, a view that, if publicly expressed in the countries you support, would get your testicles fried up in some dungeon for "subversion".

Pants-of-dog wrote:What is your argument?


I already gave it you: The reports show there are in fact more freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in any communist regime.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to believe that about me.

The USA has large portions of the population keeping or taking away the rights of others.


And if we are honest about the "taking rights away from others" part then we could include each and every leftist who's trying to take away rights like the presumption of innocence (#MeToo feminists being the most obvious example).

In fact you'd be far more aggressive in the "taking away rights of others" department than most since you believe multi-party democracy is simply a CIA regime change tool and support a limiting of civil rights that goes far beyond than what most Americans would ever agree to.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you made the comparison, not I.


Is that all? Because I already addressed this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you made the claim.

Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


The claim is self-evident. It is also worth noting that Latin American militaries have a history of human rights violations stretching far back into the early days of each republic in the 19th century.
#15191471
About MK ULtra, Crantag wrote:Only a degenerate, uncivilized, shithole country could even contemplate such a thing.

I would blame it more on a shithole group of people, and not the entire country, since most people in the country had no idea what was going on.

But to know about this program, and do nothing to change the balance of power, is to invite catastrophe on your own country as well. For the country, this is an example of fatal docility and dangerous ignorance.
#15191474
wat0n wrote:Your stated reason for being negative about the USA is hypocritical and dishonest since you are not negative about Cuba and other similar communist countries with far worse records.

I'm waiting for you to be honest about what your actual reason to be negative about the USA is.


No.

This is just another personal attack.

You talked about how the Allied countries’ behaviour in WWII had some sort of causative effect on oppression in Central America, and you also alluded to some sort of Soviet intervention. What was that argument?

No, the USA doesn't have less freedom than Cuba. And what you consider as a "reproductive right", and seems to be equivalent to abortion in your view, is also more restrictive in Europe than in Cuba, it doesn't seem to be an USA thing.


When it comes to freedom to access abortion and reproductive rights, the US is not doing as well as Cuba.

This isn't even counting that for plenty of people an abortion is inherently taking the rights of another person, a view that, if publicly expressed in the countries you support, would get your testicles fried up in some dungeon for "subversion".


Irrelevant. Ignored.

I already gave it you: The reports show there are in fact more freedoms and higher living standards in the US than in any communist regime.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

And if we are honest about the "taking rights away from others" part then we could include each and every leftist who's trying to take away rights like the presumption of innocence (#MeToo feminists being the most obvious example).

In fact you'd be far more aggressive in the "taking away rights of others" department than most since you believe multi-party democracy is simply a CIA regime change tool and support a limiting of civil rights that goes far beyond than what most Americans would ever agree to.


Ad hominem. Ignored.

The USA has a lot of people who are interested in taking away the rights of others. This includes many politicians. And this intent to take away or keep away rights targets both US citizens and non-citizens, including those who are living in another country.

Is that all? Because I already addressed this.

The claim is self-evident. It is also worth noting that Latin American militaries have a history of human rights violations stretching far back into the early days of each republic in the 19th century.


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.
#15191478
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

This is just another personal attack.

You talked about how the Allied countries’ behaviour in WWII had some sort of causative effect on oppression in Central America, and you also alluded to some sort of Soviet intervention. What was that argument?


Simple analogy, and yes the Soviets of course meddled there just like in the rest of Latin America.

So what's your actual reason for being negative about the USA?

Pants-of-dog wrote:When it comes to freedom to access abortion and reproductive rights, the US is not doing as well as Cuba.


So what? A right not to be tortured for expressing your opinion is far more important than a mild limitation to some right to abort fetuses.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Irrelevant. Ignored.


Not at all. Do you think people who oppose abortion should be tortured?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim.


Read the reports.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ad hominem. Ignored.

The USA has a lot of people who are interested in taking away the rights of others. This includes many politicians. And this intent to take away or keep away rights targets both US citizens and non-citizens, including those who are living in another country.


So only you should be able to support taking away the rights of others without criticism, eh? Would you fry the testicles of those who call you out like Cubans do to those who protest against the regime?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


And again, your dismissal is dismissed. It's up to you to support your claims.
#15191480
wat0n wrote:Simple analogy, and yes the Soviets of course meddled there just like in the rest of Latin America.

So what's your actual reason for being negative about the USA?


Oh, that is too bad.

I thought you had a cool argument about how actions in WWII created a scenario where the Soviets and the USA were inexorably drawn into a conflict in Central America.

So what? A right not to be tortured for expressing your opinion is far more important than a mild limitation to some right to abort fetuses.


As long as we agree that the US has less rights and freedoms than Cuba in this case. I am not sure why you keep discussing this tangent.

Not at all. Do you think people who oppose abortion should be tortured?

Read the reports.


Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.

So only you should be able to support taking away the rights of others without criticism, eh? Would you fry the testicles of those who call you out like Cubans do to those who protest against the regime?


Ad hominem. Ignored.

As long as we agree that the USA routinely takes away and keeps away the rights of US citizens, non-citizens, and even non-rsidents.

And again, your dismissal is dismissed. It's up to you to support your claims.


You do not even seem to know what your claim was.

Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.
#15191482
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, that is too bad.

I thought you had a cool argument about how actions in WWII created a scenario where the Soviets and the USA were inexorably drawn into a conflict in Central America.


Sure - so what's your real reason to be negative about the US?

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that the US has less rights and freedoms than Cuba in this case. I am not sure why you keep discussing this tangent.


Let me see if I get this straight. To you, the right to speak without being tortured is less important than a limited right to abort fetuses?

And what sort of logic is this, anyway? Before the abolition of slavery, people had a right and freedom to own other people. So what? Is this a right and freedom worth preserving?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


Nope, you can read the reports yourself. I'm not quoting hundreds of pages of a report anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ad hominem. Ignored.

As long as we agree that the USA routinely takes away and keeps away the rights of US citizens, non-citizens, and even non-rsidents.


No, I'm waiting: Should people have their testicles fried for exposing your hypocrisy?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You do not even seem to know what your claim was.

Since you have not presented any evidence, this argument is dismissed for lack of support. If you wish to have me look at this argument again, please rewrite it, add a link to a source, and quote the relevant text. Also, show how the text supports your claim.


Nope, will you provide evidence to back your claims up? I'm still waiting for you to explain why is it that Latin Americans are not responsible for the human rights situation in their own societies.
#15191483
@wat0n

Please note that I already addressed all of that, or as the case required, explained why it was irrelevant and/or just a personal attack.

If you wish to discuss how much I hate people and love torture, instead of the topic, feel free. However, please understand why you will have to do that without me.

Gracias, and let me know when you want to discuss whether or not it is valid to criticise and be negative about US oppression of people.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
Even our shoes are racist.

@XogGyux That post was completely off topic. P[…]

@colliric Does Atwood make any decent argument[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

Do women have body autonomy or not? Yes or no? […]

City design is important

All the "good" American cities were buil[…]