3 ms·

This is how Philippines has chosen to solve it's own societal problems, and is none of HN's or UN's business. I won't put judgement on it, but Philippine's peop

by meric 10y ago

This is how Philippines has chosen to solve it's own societal problems, and is none of HN's or UN's business. I won't put judgement on it, but Philippine's people deserve to experience the consequences of their own choices, and not have other's views foisted onto them. This is part of the reaction against globalism, and centralisation of power. Le Pen, Trump, Brexit, Duerte. People, and collections of people have a right to choose to do things differently from what the rest of the world considers normal and acceptable. Those viewing Duerte as a figure who is centralising power in the Philippines into himself are viewing things upside down. This is a revolt against the United Nations, against "human rights agreements" between countries, against focusing on appearance of being good to the rest of the world. This is the pendulum swinging from globalism back to nationalism. This is a nation whose people is choosing the method to solve it's own problems, ignoring what we think of it, and we have no right to intervene. Countries must be allowed to make their own choices. Their nationalistic tendencies must be protected. Things must exist separately, before they can be together. Without this separateness, and expecting every country to become globalised and be governed in the same way, like food in a giant blender, it's called narcissism. Stop viewing things from your own lens. Stop trying to look good to yourself. Cast political correctness away. Focus on the actual underlying reality.

int_19h 10y ago
The problem is that some (perhaps many) of those people did not make that choice, but still have to suffer the consequences imposed on them by the majority that did. And when you say that it's not our business to intervene into their internal matters, or even judge them, you completely ignore those people. Rights of the collective do not trump rights of individuals.
- meric 10y ago
  So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that?
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? If mob rule is sufficient, then yes, mob rule by a larger mob would be right. If mob rule is insufficient, then the behavior of the Phillipines isn't justified, and so yes, can be corrected by other outside groups. In either case: the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified.
    - meric 10y ago
      the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified. That maybe so, but intervention of other groups cannot be justified, if Philippine's behaviour to intervene in the unjustified behaviour of drug dealers is itself unjustified. If mob rule is unjustified, then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no?
      - mcphage 10y ago
        > then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no? It isn't justified by virtue of its size, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified. It may be justified for other reasons—humanitarian aid, for instance.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    >> So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? Pretty straightforward logic, actually. If the entirety of my oppression of you is preventing you from oppressing someone else, that is the right and proper kind of oppression. There's direct analogy here with the use of violence in self-defense: violence initiated by the attacker is bad, violence used by the victim or a third party in defense of the victim is good. In reality, it's often not so simple, but you can still rank the parties on who is "more right", and whose oppression is more justified, so to speak. So yeah, sometimes you need the majority to oppress the hell out of some smaller majority to make them behave. Good examples include US Civil War, WW2, and the use of National Guard in US to impose federal desegregation laws during the Civil Rights Era. A good example of a failure to do so, and its moral consequences, is the Rwandan genocide. Now, this all was a hypothetical - I'm not saying that an invasion of the Philippines would be justified on these grounds. Of course not! But what they're doing certainly justifies, at the very least, a condemnation - and it would be immoral to not judge. Same exact kind of immoral as turning away and muttering "not my business" or "she might deserve it anyway" when your neighbor is beating his wife.

by meric 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

The problem is that some (perhaps many) of those people did not make that choice, but still have to suffer the consequences imposed on them by the majority that did. And when you say that it's not our business to intervene into their internal matters, or even judge them, you completely ignore those people. Rights of the collective do not trump rights of individuals.

meric 10y ago
So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that?
- mcphage 10y ago
  > Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? If mob rule is sufficient, then yes, mob rule by a larger mob would be right. If mob rule is insufficient, then the behavior of the Phillipines isn't justified, and so yes, can be corrected by other outside groups. In either case: the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified.
  - meric 10y ago
    the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified. That maybe so, but intervention of other groups cannot be justified, if Philippine's behaviour to intervene in the unjustified behaviour of drug dealers is itself unjustified. If mob rule is unjustified, then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no?
    - mcphage 10y ago
      > then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no? It isn't justified by virtue of its size, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified. It may be justified for other reasons—humanitarian aid, for instance.
- int_19h 10y ago
  >> So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? Pretty straightforward logic, actually. If the entirety of my oppression of you is preventing you from oppressing someone else, that is the right and proper kind of oppression. There's direct analogy here with the use of violence in self-defense: violence initiated by the attacker is bad, violence used by the victim or a third party in defense of the victim is good. In reality, it's often not so simple, but you can still rank the parties on who is "more right", and whose oppression is more justified, so to speak. So yeah, sometimes you need the majority to oppress the hell out of some smaller majority to make them behave. Good examples include US Civil War, WW2, and the use of National Guard in US to impose federal desegregation laws during the Civil Rights Era. A good example of a failure to do so, and its moral consequences, is the Rwandan genocide. Now, this all was a hypothetical - I'm not saying that an invasion of the Philippines would be justified on these grounds. Of course not! But what they're doing certainly justifies, at the very least, a condemnation - and it would be immoral to not judge. Same exact kind of immoral as turning away and muttering "not my business" or "she might deserve it anyway" when your neighbor is beating his wife.