3 ms·

Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? We should separate the justification for meddling in anoth

by pqs 6y ago

Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? We should separate the justification for meddling in another country's affairs with the root cause of the meddling.

rgbrenner 6y ago
Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? Thats not what I said. Re-read it? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights.
  - rgbrenner 6y ago
    What's the difficulty in separating those two things? I'm not talking about entities or countries... I'm talking about human beings with names. On one side there are people that deprive others of their rights. For example: That includes Xi Jinping. It also includes every person that helped overthrow Iran's democracy. It includes US citizens that attempt to deprive others of their voting rights. On the other side you have those that advocate for human rights. That includes MLK Jr; Gandhi standing against the british; Tutu against apartheid; the Hong Kong protestors; etc. It also includes everyday people in China that work and advocate for human rights.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      I agree 100% with everything that you say, but the list of examples that you give seems a bit biased... Would you add Bush and Obama to the first list? Would you add Snowden and Manning to the second?
thesteamboat 6y ago
You are substituting "the West" for rgbrenner's "those on the side of human rights", and in doing so are missing the point of his argument. "The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems. Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior. rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X [0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.

by pqs 6y ago

rgbrenner 6y ago

Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? Thats not what I said. Re-read it? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.

pessimizer 6y ago
> The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights.
- rgbrenner 6y ago
  What's the difficulty in separating those two things? I'm not talking about entities or countries... I'm talking about human beings with names. On one side there are people that deprive others of their rights. For example: That includes Xi Jinping. It also includes every person that helped overthrow Iran's democracy. It includes US citizens that attempt to deprive others of their voting rights. On the other side you have those that advocate for human rights. That includes MLK Jr; Gandhi standing against the british; Tutu against apartheid; the Hong Kong protestors; etc. It also includes everyday people in China that work and advocate for human rights.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I agree 100% with everything that you say, but the list of examples that you give seems a bit biased... Would you add Bush and Obama to the first list? Would you add Snowden and Manning to the second?

thesteamboat 6y ago

You are substituting "the West" for rgbrenner's "those on the side of human rights", and in doing so are missing the point of his argument. "The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems. Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior. rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X [0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.