Just how much of a mess is Greece in, and what will happen?

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Ban
Posts: 2176
Joined: Fri, 6. Jul 07, 18:57

Post by Ban »

Skism wrote:Your argument against me (and it is against me)
Our argument is against your points. Whether you take that personal or not is your choice. Aside from the criticisms of your points which address your way of arguing or your choice of points. Those are "against" you, as you present it.
1: You accuse me of being a complete racist on the basis of one word. Presumptive in the extreme.
Oh, right. You invented some sort of major genetic difference between Europeans which is - due to the common ancestry and immigration - utterly wrong. Either you lacked the knowledge, included the point for no good reason or for a portion of racism in your mind. You chose the latter interpretation for yourself. I never insinuated nor stated that you were a racist, but noted that and why your point regarding "genetic differences" is wrong. Granted, I also ridiculed said point later on, quoting the idea of "national genes". But I never accused you of being a complete racist - it's unsurprising, of course, that you accuse me of doing so here. And claim that we were insulting you.
2: You ignore and devalue my points rather than address legitimate concerns. thus proving the invalidity of your argument as you have to resort to mudslinging mine and this is a pattern for the pair of you
I addressed every point you raised in your last posts - including the Wikipedia articles - and argued against them, noting the errors in your thinking or reasoning. And once again, I feel insulted by your terms as I would never refuse to argue rationally.
rather than prove yours
Problem is we only started arguing here to proof your points wrong. Hence, proving our point is equal to proving yours wrong.
(and the onus is on you to prove that the EU should exist btw)
Wrong topic.
Also, we already noted those reasons - you ignored it. Just like that post of mine in which I explained the economical statistics you had linked before it. And elaborated on them.
I have in the past deliberately avoided answering incendiary points by both of you.
But I guess that was an "incendiary" point because you had used the wrong set of data - or at least interpreted in wrongly.
3:You accuse me of supporting the slaughter of millions that is truly sick
No, your accusation that the legal system supports the slaughter of millions is truly sick. We pointed that out. We never accused you of supporting it - we accused you of instrumentalizing it. (And pointed out why it nothing to do with the legal system.)
(and in addition as I will show you have your statistics massively wrong)
I lack the time to gather more data, but:
- the Indian Rebellion of 1857: death toll cannot be specified but records include the commitment of a high amount of war crimes by British forces or under orders of British officers. Up to several hundred thousand deaths on India's side; (Interestingly, the English wikipedia article does not even mention a dispute about the losses.)
- the Second Boer War, which saw the use of "concentration camps", also saw the application of a Scorched Earth policy against the entire population, native or white, but officially "only" 26000 civilian deaths. That being the death of white people in the concentration camps, of course. The exact number of people who died due to the Scorched Earth policy is as unknown as the number of black people killed;
- the existing strategy to starve the Irish during their repeating phases of rebellion or similar thoughts.
Not that the numbers would matter regarding the point[1] (especially since you cannot compare warfare or population density or population size or the ability to commit genocide or mass murder of the nineteenth with the respective circumstances of the twentieth century). Your point was that under Common Law such immoral things were impossible. Yet, they happened. Under British Common Law. Or Indian Common Law, for that matter.
And even if our statistics were wrong - which they are not (aside from the general lack of accuracy in such matters) -, it would not change the point that things like that could happen under Common Law and under Civil Law. All that matters is what laws are in existence and enforcement - which depends on lots of things, but not on the legal system.

[1] All lost lives matter. But the injustices remains in either case, be it hundred thousand or a million deaths.
I only made out that your legal systems where wrong and that they allowed mass injustice
See above. Also, look up the treatment of American natives under US law to see how Common law generally prevents mass injustice. (Or the cases mentioned above - or any other colonial affair with British or US involvement.) Or the racial separation in the US. List could be continued.
- I NEVER implied that you were supportive of this mass slaughter
Never interpreted it that way.
by nations similar to your EU
... what?
Soviet Russia and China are similar to the EU in terms of adherence to Human Rights and correct legal procedure?
Also, please note that currently "our EU" is also "your EU" as you live in it just like we do.
only that you were living in error with your legal system.
In that case your assumption of what the legal system is and can do lives in error with what a legal system really is. And before you repeat your accusation that I would not argue my position: I mentioned all necessary arguments in my previous post(s).
and I frankly assumed that you where not aware of what unconstrained power is able to do
Like the unconstrained power of a Common Law judge to revise the law?
- also your legal systems could be massively abused as they have no protection that does stop arbitrary power
False. I mentioned the protection against this in my last post. Whether you ignored it or did not read that part, I do not know.
Also: a system in which every judge can revise the existing law cannot be abused by arbitrary power?
something that the entire common law nations understand and non ones do not I did not assume Mens rea you did.
This is an insult. And I cannot see it any other way. As a German, I am all too well aware of the problems that can result from arbitrary and unconstrained power. Accusing me of being unaware of the most shameful part of history my country has to offer is nothing but an insult. But it does not only insult me - it insults everyone who lives under Civil War because you deny him and his nation this crucial part of knowledge.
And yet you accuse us...
4:You invoke Godwins law and in a truly ridiculous way: "The Nazis argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right"" clearly the Nazis had no idea what morally right was as Britain well knew at the time.
The Nazis believed themselves morally right. Even at that point. The Americans once believed themselves morally right with racial separation; so did the South Africans. The entire Western world once believed itself morally right while permitting and conducting slavery. Or opium trade with a nation that had outlawed it for economic gain.
Their legal system, be it Civil or Common Law, did not change it and the judges did not condemn it until society's view on the issue (or the laws concerning it) had changed. (Okay, or the economic situation had made it unprofitable.) Judges have no superior morale to "normal" persons as they are formed by the very same society. They share the prejudices and opinions of their cultural background. Including them in the process of deciding what is right and what is wrong does not prevent injustice. It only makes for injustice conform with the beliefs of their equals in society.
Now, in a reasonable judiciary there are controls against this problems. Controls that restrict the authority of judges (especially those of lower courts) and force the judiciary to adhere closer to the law.
You attempt to equate me and my argument of morally right to the Nazis that is completely wrong and intellectually dishonest on so many levels it is unreal.
No. I attempted to show you the error in your argument of "morally right" as measurement of the law. And to show this I used the most obvious example in recent history. Next to the most prominent example from US history. At this point, I want to include two other examples of "morally right" legal issues in the Common Law USA: the internment of Japanese immigrants during World War II and the general reaction and legal action during the Red Scarce. Both clear cases of mass injustice. Both justified with "moral" amongst other explanations.
5 you accuse/insinuate that I use propaganda (and its not the first time you have said that)
You were comparing the legislation and judiciary of Western Europe to that of Soviet Russia. If this is your idea of a serious argument (and Creshal, Jumee and I and partially Usenko explained the problem with that), then I would ask you to reconsider this stance. And yes, things like that are nothing but propaganda and polemic.
6 having done all of that you then accuse me of presenting you as intolerant, and warmongers
Let me quote you:
Skism wrote:Ok so you think you have the right to change that hmm? how exactly are you going to do that? call another referendum? what happens when they say NO like last time?
What is this supposed to be if not the accusation or implication that we, as Germany, would provoke if not start another war or some other forceful oppression of other countries?
And yes, you present us as intolerant. You have done so in this very post I am quoting right now. And you have not done it here for the first time either.
this is incredible on your part in light of the above and your statements against my country my points and me
What now? It is incredible that we dare arguing against your points, including those points that refer to your country and ignore several facts to suit your point better?
This is so ridiculous as to be absurd. I am tempted to use Godwins law right now to say you have lost the argument I shall continue but it is questionable arguing with those who use such techniques.
Godwin's law means - mostly anyway - that you bring up the comparison with the Nazis when it is not justified. It is here, even though you disagree, because - as Creshal stated - morale is highly subjective and prone to changes. I elaborated on this above.
though it should be noted that at least In theory China Russia and the EU function as similar entities, after all (Large entities made up of multiple states with large economies run by powerful men with little regard for the people under them - that is the reason I choose them
Yeah. Right. :roll: The EU is run by ... uh... the governments of all member states (who are in turn elected by their parliaments or people, with the parliaments being elected by the people) and a parliament that is - again - voted by the people, albeit with weighted vote that favour smaller member states.
Russia and China work fundamentally different.
Not to mention that nations are explicitly allowed to leave the European Union - try that in China or Russia. And that in contrast to Russia and China, the EU lacks the right to interfere in the business of the states that encompass it - unless those states (all of them) explicitly allow it. Which is the reason why the economies of the EU member states are still under control of ... oh, wait, no one. We have no state-controlled business like China or Russia.
And what remains of state rules and "guidance" and expenses affecting the economy is still mostly national.
And you wonder why you are accused of propaganda.

When I respond to this do not be surprised if I am less than diplomatic in light of that.
Less diplomatic? Oh, well...
Jumee
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat, 29. Oct 11, 20:19
x3tc

Post by Jumee »

Skism wrote:I confess Jumee I don't know much about Russia my understanding is that Putin/Dmitry Medvedev are in charge and rule by absolute flat with little to stop them and send the FSB to deal with enemies who have little protection legal or otherwise...
sounds about right :D,

and that is not why I said that you should not use Russia as the representative for Civil Law (which I admittedly know close to nothing of, I'm not a lawyer), the point I was making is this: russian government was abusive and oppressive in times of monarchy, communism and now democracy.

So it really seems that problem here with Russia is not so much in the system as it is in the people, and if you want to argue otherwise you can apply that argument to anything not just law -> our elections are fake and obviously do not work - all elections must be bull!, our state provided healthcare is awful - that means NHS in UK must be awful too!, our "democratic" government is a bunch of criminals - democracy sucks! and etc etc

On a side note: is it that important for one side to give up their legal system? As in cant the new Pan-European system be created keeping local differences in mind? So that it is compatible with both legal systems or allows respective members (assuming you would merge into a federation as opposed to one large state) to use their own system if crime happened on their soil?

Surely this obstacle is not the most important or hard one to overcome, I'd imagine the huge differences in economic development of individual members could be a lot bigger problem, since it would make single monetary and fiscal policies a very awkward thing

EDIT: another point - do you actually think USSR constitution or legal system actually "allowed" - mass murders, oppression and etc? So really legal system has very little to do with oppression/abuse/intolerance. Officially and theoretically USSR was supposed to be a "utopia" :roll:
Last edited by Jumee on Sat, 10. Nov 12, 12:16, edited 2 times in total.
brucewarren
Posts: 9243
Joined: Wed, 26. Mar 08, 14:15
x3tc

Post by brucewarren »

I'd be interested in knowing how the US manages it.

It certainly has a common currency and yet I'd be very surprised if all 50 states had identical fiscal circumstances. If the well worn argument about different circumstances in different nations were true the dollar ought to rip apart with not 27 but 50 different sets of circumstances, yet for some inexplicable reason it seems to be doing just fine.
Jumee
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat, 29. Oct 11, 20:19
x3tc

Post by Jumee »

brucewarren wrote:I'd be interested in knowing how the US manages it.
It would actually be very interesting to talk to a US macro-economist or at least someone who has studied it (my course of macro-economics is EU oriented so I know very little of what makes US tick)
brucewarren wrote:It certainly has a common currency and yet I'd be very surprised if all 50 states had identical fiscal circumstances
there is probably still less of a difference between the states economically than between say Germany (NOTE: I'm not using that country to try and make a villain out of it, only because it has relatively strong economy) and Eastern European countries
Ban
Posts: 2176
Joined: Fri, 6. Jul 07, 18:57

Post by Ban »

Jumee wrote:On a side note: is it that important for one side to give up their legal system? As in cant the new Pan-European system be created keeping local differences in mind? So that it is compatible with both legal systems or allows respective members (assuming you would merge into a federation as opposed to one large state) to use their own system if crime happened on their soil?
Currently, the legal system is not a problem. Whether it would become in the future, depends on the path of European integration or development. And it should be possible to keep both systems active. Canada and South Africa (the entire state, if I remember correctly), for example, have areas that are bijuridica, and they are one nation "despite" that.
That is, amongst other things, why neither Creshal nor I have ever said that the legal system of either side would have to change.
brucewarren wrote:I'd be interested in knowing how the US manages it.

It certainly has a common currency and yet I'd be very surprised if all 50 states had identical fiscal circumstances. If the well worn argument about different circumstances in different nations were true the dollar ought to rip apart with not 27 but 50 different sets of circumstances, yet for some inexplicable reason it seems to be doing just fine.
Well, for one: nobody really cares. Asking about California's or Texas' or Nevada's fiscal situation is like asking about the fiscal situation of Bavaria (for Germany) or Wales (for the UK). They are not seen as separate entities but part of the larger nation. Hence, their debt or other problems are negligible in comparison to that of the entire nation.
The EU, on the other hand, is - in this aspect - seen as more akin to the UN than to the US, with each member state being a separate entity.

Another issue is that US states can declare bankruptcy - and have done so in the past -, with rules established for that situation. Europe lacks such rules and can currently not risk the bankruptcy for fear of a collapse of the banking sector (or so is the perception) and resulting speculation on bankruptcies of Spain, Italy and Portugal. Notably, the second problem would be an issue for the US as well, as their banking sector is not that much more stable than the European one, if at all.
With the nationalizing of Greek debt (due to Euro-zone nations buying it), a political component is in effect, too. That does not help matters. But, even without it, bankruptcy would probably be out of the question due to the aforementioned fear.

Also, there is no doubt that the FED would step in and simply buy the US debt. They are already doing it and have been doing it for years. The ECB is prohibited to do so. Because of this, the risk of the debt being absolutely worthless is lower in the US than in Europe, as you can always expect the FED to buy your debt.
Another issue is that, like in most European countries, pension funds and insurance companies have to invest a part of their money in national debt bonds. However, in Europe we are talking about national government bonds (e.g. German, Greece, Italian, French or Spanish ones), while the US have US bonds. So, in their case the entire country (and the largest economy of the world at that) guarantees the debt, while it is only one of the member states in Europe.

Furthermore, the US are the largest economy of the world. The idea of them having problems paying their debt is ... unfathomable. It is simply something that may not happen. They are, more than any bank, too big to fail. Despite all their problems the US-Dollar remains the leading currency of the world - with the Yuan tied to it and China stabilizing the Dollar for that reason - and is unchallenged (the Euro is in no position to challenge anything after all...) for the moment. Thus, the entire global economy is in a way tied to the Dollar, which gives companies and nations and banks, investors and speculators a reason to keep the Dollar stable. This currency is - in essence - what the value of their business is tied to in the end.
It also helps that the US are the most powerful monetary market place, with most significant actors originating there. It is not all that sensible to "bet" or act against your home or, at least, the country that allows your operation to continue.

I hope this quite short summary of some of the points offers some explanation, albeit not having all the detail it should probably have.
Jumee wrote:there is probably still less of a difference between the states economically than between say Germany (NOTE: I'm not using that country to try and make a villain out of it, only because it has relatively strong economy) and Eastern European countries
Well, there are some very distinct differences between US states as well, concerning the focus of their economy or their general structure - and so on. But yes, the economies of European states have a wide range regarding their size and structure. Comparing Luxembourg with Estonia (the countries with the highest and lowest GDP per capita, respectively) or Malta and Cyprus with Germany and France is certainly not the easiest task.
brucewarren
Posts: 9243
Joined: Wed, 26. Mar 08, 14:15
x3tc

Post by brucewarren »

@Ban Thanks for that.
Skism
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon, 22. Mar 10, 21:36
x3tc

Post by Skism »

@Ban

I started writing responses to your posts but realised part way through what was the point?
We have no basis for a rational discussion here.
I addressed every point you raised in your last posts - including the Wikipedia articles - and argued against them, noting the errors in your thinking or reasoning. And once again, I feel insulted by your terms as I would never refuse to argue rationally.
“The Nazis believed themselves morally right. Even at that point.”
Godwin's law means - mostly anyway - that you bring up the comparison with the Nazis when it is not justified. It is here, even though you disagree, because - as Creshal stated - morale is highly subjective and prone to changes. I elaborated on this above.
Morality? Creshal said it. The Nazis argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right" option into their verdicts. I do not think I have to explain how that ended.

You make all of these points
Then say:
You were comparing the legislation and judiciary of Western Europe to that of Soviet Russia. If this is your idea of a serious argument then I would ask you to reconsider this stance. And yes, things like that are nothing but propaganda and polemic.
You are using Reductio ad Hitlerum which is by definition a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Quote from that:
“A special variation of the ad hominem attack is the Reductio ad Hitlerum, which also invokes Godwin's Law.

1 A makes claim X.
2 Hitler also claimed X.
3 Hitler was a very bad person.
4 Therefore X is false.
An implication of this argument is also that A is a very bad person, at the same level as Hitler.”
To make it clear:

1 I claim that common law is morally right
2 Hitler claimed he had moral right and he “argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right" option into their verdicts.”
3 Hitler was a very bad person
4 Therefore moral right is false (and so is common law)


My God that is such an utterly absurd argument that I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry a system of law that has existed since Saxon times (900AD) is comparable to Hitler? That’s truly absurd. In the extreme.it is a system with ancient protections against tyranny that have been developed over the years and improved that has trial by Jurors (your own peers) and judges who are independent and thus can defy the state (a point BTW that you ridiculed and so I never got to explain) particularly a state that is enacting unjust laws, this does not happen often but it does happen, and unjust laws are provern wrong

Your argument is also absurd as you are saying Moral right = Nazi
This is completely and totally wrong what motivated Churchill and everyone else against the Nazis was in fact moral outrage and the utter Evil of the Nazis (please note that I am not blaming you as a German you frankly need to get over that part of our history neither of us was alive at this point so that’s not your bloody fault so quit projecting that at me when I make current objections at the EU about no referendums or ignoring them o about why common law is right)

It’s a self defeating argument for God’s sake!

I will confess I was so outraged by some of the things said and the things the EU has done that I likely said things in such a way that I should not have done, and whilst I have no good impression of the EU and I think it is headed for disaster and has oppressive laws (that treaties make it very difficult to get out off as you have to renegotiate the whole treaty and cancel all benefits to get rid of the bad policing laws), to compare it to Mao and Stalin is massively over the top and utterly stupid The EU has not mass murdered anyone, and I really ought to stop listening to those who think that it will.

Thinking that the EU is autocratic/bureaucratic, corrupt, has bad laws, has leaders who care nothing for the people and who are prepared as a political class to override democratic will (and many of my own politicians would fit in with this) still does not equate them with soviet Russia or China it was lazy posting to argue such a guilt by association

My sense of indignation lead me to say things In haste I really should not have done
I will have the balls to say that elements of my argument now I look at it contains a similar logical fallacy as the one I’m now arguing against looking at it. Edit: This is mortally stupid on my part
When writing my response to your ridiculous argument I realized my own was completely skewed as well.


That said it is wrong of you Ban to demand me to recant my position(s):whilst arguing a complete logical fallacy yourself.
You were comparing the legislation and judiciary of Western Europe to that of Soviet Russia. If this is your idea of a serious argument (and Creshal, Jumee and I and partially Usenko explained the problem with that), then I would ask you to reconsider this stance. And yes, things like that are nothing but propaganda and polemic.

One more thing:
Ok so you think you have the right to change that hmm? how exactly are you going to do that? call another referendum? what happens when they say NO like last time?
This contains a fear of mine and you choose to ridicule it thus reinforcing it and confirming it.
HOW are you going to change people’s minds? Will you respect the will of the people and not make another Lisbon treaty after a referendum?
A lot of people have been saying this Registerme myself several politicians and a lot of people. Ridiculing me for this point is especially bad please do not dismiss it as intolerance and Warmongering that’s just bad form.

Its getting very late here and frankly I am going to Bed.
Hatred destroys Wisdom
User avatar
Samuel Creshal
Posts: 17833
Joined: Sat, 6. Mar 04, 16:38
x3tc

Post by Samuel Creshal »

Your argument is also absurd as you are saying Moral right = Nazi
The point was: Morals change. Not just over time, they can change drastically in the span of a few years. Inclusion of morals into law – which also happens with Civil Law, as the Hitler example showed¹ – is therefore a Bad Idea™. This was, again, never a personal insult, nor unjustified, nor meant as an argument why "common law is baaaaad!!1". :roll:

You're not trying to argue, you're trying to be offended and play the poor victim.
a system of law that has existed since Saxon times (900AD)
Our law system exists since 500 BC! Older is better, right? :P


__________
¹: There are more "harmless" examples, too. Discrimination against homosexuals, women, fathers, … all exist in our morally right laws. Which is why they should be abolished.
User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Post by Usenko »

I happen to like common law better, but either common or civil law can be done well.

In any case, this is a bit of a tangent. Meanwhile, what is happening in Greece and the rest of the EU?
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)
Ban
Posts: 2176
Joined: Fri, 6. Jul 07, 18:57

Post by Ban »

Skism wrote:We have no basis for a rational discussion here.
I disagree.
You are using Reductio ad Hitlerum which is by definition a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Quote from that:
“A special variation of the ad hominem attack is the Reductio ad Hitlerum, which also invokes Godwin's Law.

1 A makes claim X.
2 Hitler also claimed X.
3 Hitler was a very bad person.
4 Therefore X is false.
An implication of this argument is also that A is a very bad person, at the same level as Hitler.”
... which I have never done, though I admit that it can be seen that way because bringing up Hitler tends to end that way.
Nevertheless, I used the Nazis (and not Hitler himself) as an example for the argument I had earlier made, namely that the argument of "morally right" can be abused and misused. Because morals change and because different people have different morals and because the "morally right" can be channeled into utterly unjust attacks if you understand your propaganda. The Nazis are an excellent example for this but so is racial separation and all that came with it (the second example I made).

1 I claim that common law is morally right
2 Hitler claimed he had moral right and he “argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right" option into their verdicts.”
3 Hitler was a very bad person
4 Therefore moral right is false (and so is common law)
First, "therefor your argument that the morally right is the right thing for a law to adhere to" is false because the "morally right" can be abused by those who define and manipulate moral. Or by the moral that already exist if it is, say, a racist one, be it Nazism or racial separation or whatever other accepted racism that exists or existed in this world. Or slavery, for that matter.
Secondly, "3 That means that the "morally right" option can be abused for things that are not necessarily "morally right" for everyone or in the eyes of the future." Hence: "4 Therefore "moral right" is nothing that should dominate or be included in similar form in the law."
Thirdly, this is an argument against your point about the "morally right" option that you viewed as part of Common Law. And seeing that the Common Law country USA had the evenly well suited example of racial separation (and slavery) it is the better example for this issue. The one regarding the Nazis explains the point just as well, though, and has the - partially negative - effect of being very unambiguous.
a system of law that has existed since Saxon times (900AD) is comparable to Hitler?
Nope. The idea of "morally right" (an entirely subjective issue) has been (ab)used by Hitler and countless others to justify their crimes and - in fact - make them legal (because the "morally right" should be legal, shouldn't it?). This has been done in Common and Civil Law countries, as the examples show. And every single one of these examples is reason enough to be very careful when you justify laws with the "morally right".
it is a system with ancient protections against tyranny
Britain's history has its share of unjust acts and leaders and kings that could be called tyrants - depending on the point of view, as usual.
trial by Jurors (your own peers)
In a society such as ours, judges and jurors are both citizens of the state, with equal rights, duties and privileges. They are not that different, in fact, have never been.
and judges who are independent and thus can defy the state (a point BTW that you ridiculed and so I never got to explain)
I criticized that point of yours, with arguments. That is not "ridiculing". But again:
The right to defy the state and the law is just that - the ability to judge against the law. It can be used for good, if the law alone is not enough to judge the case correctly, and it can be used for bad, if the judge deems the law insufficient for whatever verdict he has in mind. You can correct and act of injustice and you can commit such an act. Both is possible if you as judge have the right to defy the law. Claiming that this is inherently good ignores that it can be abused every time it is used.
particularly a state that is enacting unjust laws
See racial separation for examples on how well this works. (And in Germany you could bring your case about this injustice before the Verfassungsgericht, while in Europe you could bring your case before the European Court of Human Rights.)
Also, what is considered "unjust" just as what is considered "morally right" depends on the person that considers it. Hence, you give every judge the right or privilege to apply his version of justice - whether his opinion is "correct" in the people's eye or not.
and unjust laws are provern wrong
Hopefully. And this can happen in either system: the creation of such laws and the abolishing of them.
Your argument is also absurd as you are saying Moral right = Nazi
Once again, you are misunderstanding me...
My argument was that even the Nazis claimed to have chosen the "morally right" path. Everyone can claim that.
This is completely and totally wrong what motivated Churchill and everyone else against the Nazis was in fact moral outrage and the utter Evil of the Nazis
And yet the Nazis believed themselves to be morally right - morally superior even. And they are not an exception to the rule. Usually, even the bloodiest dictator will claim that he is doing the "right" thing. Stating that you are "morally right" does not even mean that you are. And even if other people believe that you are, you can still be wrong - as were slavers and those explaining that certain subhumans required "education" (be that the European and North American view on Africans or the Nazis general point of view). Yet, many people believed them to be right in their time.
(please note that I am not blaming you as a German you frankly need to get over that part of our history neither of us was alive at this point so that’s not your bloody fault
Alright then. Could we stop applying things like Godwin's Law to every time someone dares mention the Nazis? It's part of history. You are to learn from it - not call it evil and be done with it.
so quit projecting that at me when I make current objections at the EU about no referendums or ignoring them o about why common law is right)
Some of your comments pointed in this very historical direction...
And Common Law is not "right" but one of the legal systems in this world. Be it as "right" or "wrong" as the others.

that treaties make it very difficult to get out off as you have to renegotiate the whole treaty and cancel all benefits to get rid of the bad policing laws)
Well, those treaties were negotiated and signed by your democratic government as well. Call it an error or not, it was not the EU who did this but the democratic governments of its member states.
to compare it to Mao and Stalin is massively over the top and utterly stupid The EU has not mass murdered anyone, and I really ought to stop listening to those who think that it will.
I can hardly argue with that.
Thinking that the EU is autocratic/bureaucratic, corrupt, has bad laws, has leaders who care nothing for the people and who are prepared as a political class to override democratic will (and many of my own politicians would fit in with this)
This list can be applied to every democracy in this world, to be honest. No exceptions that come to mind. Hence, neither are the member states any different nor is it that simple.
That said it is wrong of you Ban to demand me to recant my position(s):whilst arguing a complete logical fallacy yourself.
Hopefully, I explained in an understandable manner why there is no such thing, only drastic examples. Then again, no others would have sufficed with the discussin and topic at hand.

Ok so you think you have the right to change that hmm? how exactly are you going to do that? call another referendum? what happens when they say NO like last time?
This contains a fear of mine and you choose to ridicule it thus reinforcing it and confirming it.
The way I read it this was an attack against Germany - and possibly other member states -, including the reference to that certain part in German history. I did neither ridicule nor reinforce or confirm it but noted the problem with the comparison I saw.
Also, I noted that some of the suggestions made in these questions are not correct. I did explain that the notion was that mentalities can change. I did explain that member states have the right - if their respective democratic process yields that result - to reject EU treaties. Or even leave the EU. (One more thing about that: whether a referendum - as in "allow the people to vote" - will be called or not is not the choice of the EU but the choice of every member state. If you are not asked personally this has nothing to do with the EU. It is simply a decision of your very own government.)
HOW are you going to change people’s minds? Will you respect the will of the people and not make another Lisbon treaty after a referendum?
If I remember correctly, that treaty was approved of by all member states. Including referenda in the countries whose laws demanded it. The will of the people - those who voted anyway - was respected here and had apparently changed in those countries who had previously rejected another treaty.
please do not dismiss it as intolerance and Warmongering that’s just bad form.
See above. The way it was written inferred a certain accusation behind it; the very accusation that gave reason to the latter point. If that was not the case, there would be a misunderstanding.

Usenko wrote:I happen to like common law better, but either common or civil law can be done well.
I would call your preference a cultural one and, of course, a matter of habit. That is not meant to criticize said preference or to say that it would seem inferior were it not for those influences. It is simply the assumption that a person that is used and acquainted to one system has a greater awareness regarding its advantages and a higher familiarity with it.
In the end, as you say, both systems can be executed well and badly. And this execution is the part that matters.
In any case, this is a bit of a tangent. Meanwhile, what is happening in Greece and the rest of the EU?
Apparently, they agreed to another set of austerity measures. Meanwhile, people demonstrate against said set of measures.
Naturally, this time everything will work out just fine and the crisis will end... :roll:
RegisterMe
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe »

So, Ban (and everybody else), is Germany going to pony up the cash to bail France out?
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
User avatar
Samuel Creshal
Posts: 17833
Joined: Sat, 6. Mar 04, 16:38
x3tc

Post by Samuel Creshal »

RegisterMe wrote:So, Ban (and everybody else), is Germany going to pony up the cash to bail France out?
Sure! Who's going to bail out Germany afterwards? :roll:
RegisterMe
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe »

Nobody. That's the point.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
Skism
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon, 22. Mar 10, 21:36
x3tc

Post by Skism »

Ok Let me add another point: it is my fault for including a logical fallacy with my point in this thread. Also this means that the flame war is I believe my fault as I fired the first shot this time.

An apology is owed as perverting the truth even unintentionally is wrong

Sorry to RegisterMe for derailing the thread

Moral responsibility for this is at least partly mine.

That said I am going to have a argue against Ban and Samuels logical fallacies lets hope this time when I do answer no flame war occurs ;)
Hatred destroys Wisdom

Return to “Off Topic English”