View Poll Results: Is this right ?
Yes
7
22.58%
No
24
77.42%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll
Romanias R Us
Jan 29th 2014, 9:13 pm
#91
Muskoka, Ontario
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,045
Re: Romanias R Us
As with everything, it depends on context. If that certain death will prevent further deaths, and those preventable deaths are not random but due to vengeance in the convicted, then almost certainly it is the right thing to do. Or to use your terminology, it makes you a better person than the other.
I'm not completely sure where I stand on this, I think it's an interesting moral question... What if you know he couldn't do any harm anymore? Kept in segregation?
I thought the case of Abu Qatada was very interesting for the above reasons!
Jan 29th 2014, 9:49 pm
#92
Yo
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Romanias R Us
I simply don't have a moral problem with it; I don't view life as sacred, and I especially don't view a terrorists life as sacred. Even purely on a cost basis I think a lot of the serious criminals and terrorists should be "deleted".
Jan 29th 2014, 10:51 pm
#93
Muskoka, Ontario
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,045
Re: Romanias R Us
The Abu Qatada case is definitely the case in point !!
I simply don't have a moral problem with it; I don't view life as sacred, and I especially don't view a terrorists life as sacred. Even purely on a cost basis I think a lot of the serious criminals and terrorists should be "deleted".
I simply don't have a moral problem with it; I don't view life as sacred, and I especially don't view a terrorists life as sacred. Even purely on a cost basis I think a lot of the serious criminals and terrorists should be "deleted".
.I'm uncomfortable with the playing god notion...
Jan 29th 2014, 11:44 pm
#95
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Re: Romanias R Us
Not exactly.
The EU can impose new regulations any time it wants, and the member states have to abide by it, even disregarding their own national legislation.
It is a question of the EU being very picky about what powers it wants to harmonize / control, and which can wait.
The EU can impose new regulations any time it wants, and the member states have to abide by it, even disregarding their own national legislation.
It is a question of the EU being very picky about what powers it wants to harmonize / control, and which can wait.
Jan 29th 2014, 11:45 pm
#96
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Re: Romanias R Us
It's a bit half-assed isn't it?
We seem to be misunderstanding each other. At a purely philosophical level I have no real problem with an idea of an EU. As I stated previously there are times where it is beneficial.
If there was only the EU and the national parliaments were removed it would be quite like other "countries". You could call it a federation. But it isn't like that. The problem is it probably (almost certainly) wouldn't work. It would be like having a national government with dozens of parties in coalition. It wouldn't last. In addition, referring specifically to the UK, the people were never asked if they wished to be part of the EU. If Harper decided tomorrow to take us into some Greater United North America but didn't put it to a direct vote you could imagine what would happen. He'd probably be strung up.
I'm suggesting the "EU" itself would prefer this be the case. If you agree with that then it is your choice. Again, at the theoretical level it's actually the best way to do it - if it's your desire to have an actual "union" rather than the messy inconsistent union that currently exists. Many people in Europe would probably be fine with a full union. I don't expect anything more than a tiny minority in the UK would. Given the wind is blowing that direction (slowly) it's probably best to bow out.
Because they aren't the same thing. Canada is a federation. The EU is not. It's pretty fundamental. Saying they're the "same thing" suggests a gap in your knowledge.
We seem to be misunderstanding each other. At a purely philosophical level I have no real problem with an idea of an EU. As I stated previously there are times where it is beneficial.
If there was only the EU and the national parliaments were removed it would be quite like other "countries". You could call it a federation. But it isn't like that. The problem is it probably (almost certainly) wouldn't work. It would be like having a national government with dozens of parties in coalition. It wouldn't last. In addition, referring specifically to the UK, the people were never asked if they wished to be part of the EU. If Harper decided tomorrow to take us into some Greater United North America but didn't put it to a direct vote you could imagine what would happen. He'd probably be strung up.
I'm suggesting the "EU" itself would prefer this be the case. If you agree with that then it is your choice. Again, at the theoretical level it's actually the best way to do it - if it's your desire to have an actual "union" rather than the messy inconsistent union that currently exists. Many people in Europe would probably be fine with a full union. I don't expect anything more than a tiny minority in the UK would. Given the wind is blowing that direction (slowly) it's probably best to bow out.
Because they aren't the same thing. Canada is a federation. The EU is not. It's pretty fundamental. Saying they're the "same thing" suggests a gap in your knowledge.
Examples of "bad" laws please
Jan 29th 2014, 11:53 pm
#97
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: SW Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,960
Re: Romanias R Us
As with everything, it depends on context. If that certain death will prevent further deaths, and those preventable deaths are not random but due to vengeance in the convicted, then almost certainly it is the right thing to do. Or to use your terminology, it makes you a better person than the other.
Jan 30th 2014, 2:22 am
#98
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: SW Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,960
Re: Romanias R Us
Coming back to this I get that you're 15, I think you're views are simplistic of how "easy" it might be are because you are young, and I suspect empathy is something gained with age which seems lacking. I often think that if I don't have enough knowledge of a subject that it's best not to contemplate too strong a view.
A woman lived in a modest house, didn't have everything, wasn't exactly living paycheck-to-paycheck, but was barely scraping it, and had little spending money. Her neighbour was really poor, out of work, and living off dwindling savings. Her neighbour comes knocking on the door one day for some help, but the woman had almost nothing to give her, for she barely had any left for herself.
Think of the woman as Malta, and the neighbour as the Libyan "boat people". Malta already has a shoddy economy, not enough jobs for it's citizens, let alone immigrants, and the jobs there is are low-paying. It's doing better than Libyans by far, but it's still not off that well at the moment.
Imagine how hard it is for a Maltese citizen to be laid off from their job because the employer can employ a Libyan "under the table" for alot cheaper than he pays the Maltese. And meanwhile since the Libyan is working under the table, the gov doesn't know about it, so the Libyan is still taking gov benefits.
I witnessed it myself when I went down this summer. When i went a few years ago, there was this nice guy who used to fill the well for my Nanu when it ran out. My parents remembered him from earlier trips as well. When I went this summer, the nice well guy was gone, replaced by an equally pleasant Libyan. But, this guy was working under the table, and making less than the Maltese he replaced. (I know because my grandfather is family to the person who owns the water filling company, and he told him this)
Thats the perspective i'm coming from. I understand i'm young and I may not have as mature a view as others, but that's my case in point.
