Kofi

Member Profile


Member Since: October 18, 2010
Last Power Points used: October 16, 2011
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to Kofi

oritteropo says...

The one I know for sure was the anti-globalisation rally, where both sides were pretty unreasonable.

Now that you mention it, as for the other time, I remember seeing police holding protesters by the throat on TV another time or two apart from that, but I don't actually recall what it was about.

Now I'm not saying the protesters are the same each time, but the police certainly are.
In reply to this comment by Kofi:
What "last few episodes"?

I am asking this sincerely.

>> ^oritteropo:

Most of them actually left when told to, the 100 or so who stayed really have no-one to blame but themselves. It shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone that our police are a bit heavy handed after the last few times this has happened.
Now as to whether the by-law they were violating is just is another question, but just remember our laws are NOT the same as in the U.S.
>> ^Kofi:
There was punching and kicking and pepper spray. This is from 1st hand eye witnesses and participants. Look at my other vid to see excessive force being used. You should have sympathy for them or else your moral compass is way off.
>> ^TheSofaKing:
Nobody being punched or kicked. No batons, no pepper spray, no tasers. I didn't even see anyone being handcuffed. I have no idea what the specific issue was at this location that prompted police to break up this demonstration and I can understand people not agreeing with that decision.... but to call this "shocking" is sadly melodramatic. Police officers were obviously told to break up the people in the specific area (people watching from the outer area appeared to be left alone). They did it professionally and did not appear to hurt anyone. The protesters screaming and carrying on (specifically the douche at 0:48) look like morons to me and I have no sympathy for them.




bcglorf says...

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos