Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 75764" data-attributes="member: 544">&gt;“freedom, liberty, independence”&gt;“ends justify the means” and “we decide what’s acceptable”[ATTACH=full]15316[/ATTACH]You started with “freedom, liberty, and independence,” but now you’re arguing that “ends justify the means” and that whatever power allows is legitimate.Those two positions don’t coexist.If freedom and liberty are real principles, they have to apply universally, including to people you don’t like. Otherwise they’re not principles, they’re just branding for power.The “they voted for Hamas” argument doesn’t hold up either. Not everyone voted, not everyone supports them, and children certainly didn’t. So you’re either defending collective punishment, or you’re applying a standard you wouldn’t accept anywhere else.And when you say something is legitimate because it’s backed by veto power, that’s not legitimacy, that’s enforcement. By that logic, any state with enough power is automatically justified, which makes the concept of “rights” meaningless.So which is it?Do you actually believe in freedom and liberty as principles, or do you believe power determines what’s acceptable? Because right now you’re switching between the two depending on what’s convenient.[ATTACH=full]15317[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schwarzwald, post: 75764, member: 544"] >“freedom, liberty, independence” >“ends justify the means” and “we decide what’s acceptable” [ATTACH type="full"]15316[/ATTACH] You started with “freedom, liberty, and independence,” but now you’re arguing that “ends justify the means” and that whatever power allows is legitimate. Those two positions don’t coexist. If freedom and liberty are real principles, they have to apply universally, including to people you don’t like. Otherwise they’re not principles, they’re just branding for power. The “they voted for Hamas” argument doesn’t hold up either. Not everyone voted, not everyone supports them, and children certainly didn’t. So you’re either defending collective punishment, or you’re applying a standard you wouldn’t accept anywhere else. And when you say something is legitimate because it’s backed by veto power, that’s not legitimacy, that’s enforcement. By that logic, any state with enough power is automatically justified, which makes the concept of “rights” meaningless. So which is it? Do you actually believe in freedom and liberty as principles, or do you believe power determines what’s acceptable? Because right now you’re switching between the two depending on what’s convenient. [ATTACH type="full"]15317[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread