I was an education major the first two years of undergrad. I have read Piaget.
I have both a child and a dog.
My child at 8 years of age possessed a certain degree of cognitive ability that my dog never has demonstrated and I doubt ever will.
Depends on the breed of dog doesn’t it? The breed of your child is human. Just a thought. Not intended to disparage either your child or dog.
The boy is a Chinese-American mix. He is moderately intelligent.
The dog is a Chinese Sharpei. This breed is moderately intelligent.
My boy has cognitive powers that my dog, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) will never possess.
[quote=“tigerman”]
A dog turned mean by abuse doesn’t understand this… at least I don’t think he does.[/quote]
It is about having a survival instinct. If a dog turns mean due to abuse, it is because it recognises that that abuse is detrimental to its own survival and so lashes out in order to simply survive. A child suffering abuse, will instinctively do that which protects itself. Instinct plays a factor here but external factors do determine what dogs and humans do, be it good or bad. I believe that all are born good and only become bad when bad experiences outweigh the good ones.
You yourself seem to doubt the difference?
[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“tigerman”]
A dog turned mean by abuse doesn’t understand this… at least I don’t think he does.[/quote]
It is about having a survival instinct. If a dog turns mean due to abuse, it is because it recognises that that abuse is detrimental to its own survival and so lashes out in order to simply survive. A child suffering abuse, will instinctively do that which protects itself. Instinct plays a factor here but external factors do determine what dogs and humans do, be it good or bad. I believe that all are born good and only become bad when bad experiences outweigh the good ones.
You yourself seem to doubt the difference?[/quote]
Well, no… Of course I do not dispute what you say above.
However, the original statement to which I replied asserted that “people are people” and that “there are no good or bad paeople”. You have thrown a monkey wrench into this by bringing in children (who I admit are indeed people).
I agree that we (dogs and people) are born good and can turn bad or be turned bad. But I still maintain that given similar or even identical abuse, a dog and a child will react in a similar fashion but that there will be a difference in the cognitive process that determines the reactions. In other words, I think a dog might react instinctively more than rationally, while a child or adult will think about his reaction and even the consequences of the same.
In any event, I don’t think a dog will EVER consider the moral implications of his actions while a child, and definitely an adult, is very likely to consider such implications.
Take a look at this:
[quote]If the Kingdom of God is within you, so is the Kingdom of Evil. I know this from my experience of myself. [URL=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$L0ASQOUQ1UQVFQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2004/05/13/do1301.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/05/13/ixopinion.html]When I was about nine, there were often ants’ nests at the base of our house. I used to love pouring boiling water on the ants, seeing them transformed from living beings into little boiled black dots.
How easily I persuaded myself that, by killing them, I was defending our house, preventing it from being undermined! Yet even as I told myself this, I knew that it was the killing I loved[/URL], not the structure of our house.
[/quote]
[quote=“Mr. Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize winner and East Timor’s senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation”]As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I’ve never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That’s why I supported Vietnam’s 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot’s regime, and Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. [color=red]In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval–and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval[/color]. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed “Emperor” Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened–without a U.N. mandate–to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world’s most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq’s neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.[/quote]
Rascal?
Well, my whole family is German for one thing though I grew up in America, so I think that given my repeated visits during childhood and adulthood to that nation that I have a pretty good insight into the German character but you are quite right in saying that it is impossible to generalize about an entire country and people so in that regard mea culpa my comments went overboard.
What I do find interesting about the German question though is that in my opinion, it very closely mirrors the attitudes going on in the Middle East. The German sense of resentment from being denied their rightful place in history and on the world stage is something that many Arab nations feel today. When I mention Germany I mean the Germany of the two world wars and not the country that you see today. Perhaps, I was not clear enough in that regard. I thought that given the context of Naziism that this would be clear, but again, I am referring to the period from say 1870 to 1945.
I also find that it is very very interesting that many of the regimes that you see in the Middle East today can trace their roots (Baathism) and pan-Arabism to fascist templates developed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Hitler’s Germany was an inspiration to many of these Middle Eastern governments, the propaganda, the hatred of the Jews, the control of the media, the paranoid obsession with outside forces intent on destroying the purity and power of the Arab people (read German in the 1930s), the fear of globalization that resulted from mass modernization and industrialization, the decline of the village life, etc. the fear of urbanization blah blah blah, but I think that the two examples are really worth comparing and noting.
Like Germany, Arabs have had to go back to the mystical Caliphate of the 700s to find the right kind of historical stuff to support their wounded pride as did the Nazis have to search most desperately for some mythical Aryan, Wagnerian past greatness.
So these are my points which perhaps were not made clear enough earlier. I am talking about fascism and that means not the Germany of today but the Germany of two generations ago, but this Germany was the template that was used by many of the nasty Arab regimes that are still in power today.
[quote]mos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize winner and East Timor’s senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation"]As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I’ve never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That’s why I supported Vietnam’s 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot’s regime, and Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. [color=red]In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval–and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval[/color]. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed “Emperor” Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened–without a U.N. mandate–to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world’s most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq’s neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.[/quote]
What are you trying to prove, Tigerman, that Nobel Prize Winners can be naive and stupid? The French intervened against Bokassa because he was about to change masters from Paris to Tripoli. France’s interests there were at stake. See here. The French were happy to keep th President of Zaire, and many other severe shits, in power, so long as they served French interests.
The Tanzanians toppled Amin not because they did some humanitarian thing, but because Amin had bombed Tanzanian towns (in response to a coup attempt based there and led by Obote) and directly, because Amin had attempted to annex part of Tanzanian territory, an act of war. Here’s the skinny on that misunderstanding
Guess what: a Nobel prize does not confer understanding of history. It pays to do a little research, before publicly exposing one’s gullibility. That includes both Nobel prize winners, and posters on obscure discussion forums.
Vorkosigan
I don’t care what reasons the French or anyone else gave for intervening and invading when they did. Of course the French and everyone else intervenes to protect/preserve their own interests…
At the end of that article I asked Rascal what he thought of all of those instances where nations intervened/invaded without UN authority/approval. I did this because Rascal (and others) made a VERY BIG stink about the US invading Iraq without UN approval.
Oh, please piss off. You’ve misunderstood the purpose of my post. All you wanted to do was illustrate how much you know about those events and attempt to belittle me. 
I raised a big stink too. I thought it was crucial. Since we didn’t have it, we lost the war when we crossed the border. The other instances are irrelevant, and, as we see below, the same events unfolded in some of them. Of course, since Tanzania didn’t drive a truck through the system of alliances it had constructed (unlike us) the cost to Tanzania, internationally speaking, was much lower. And the cost to the world, was much lower.
There was nothing to stop you, Tigerman, from actually spending a little time on the Net to research the claims you post. It doesn’t take living in Africa to be able to spot bullshit like Ramos-Horta’s.
Here’s even more – Horta was right, the parallels are uncanny! LOL.
"Yet problems with the 10,000 Tanzanian troops occupying Uganda - who were unsupported by any significant UN force, as with Iraq today - began almost immediately. While initially welcomed as an obvious improvement over Amin’s thuggish soldiers, the soldiers were “looting houses and demanding money at gunpoint,” ex-President Yusuf Lule claimed, a point confirmed by Gregory Jaynes of the New York Times, who wrote that the Tanzanians “use their weapons to commandeer their basic needs from civilians.”
Uganda then turned into a snakepit from which it is still emerging. That’s what a lot of us foresee for Iraq.
Vorkosigan
No. You’re still missing my point. Rascal did not make the argument that you made. Rascal stated merely that the US was (morally) wrong to invade without the blessing of the UN… for rascal, invading without UN authority/approval made the US invasion invalid/illegal.
You seem to be arguing that without UN approval and multilateral assistance, the invasion could not be won for logistical reasons… unless I have misread your argument.
I only want to understand from Rascal why the other instances cited by the author didn’t/don’t seem to bother him.
Sigh… I have already explained that I wasn’t posting any claims… only facts of previous invasions not authorized by the UN. I don’t think this is very difficult to understand. I was not/am not interested in whether Ramos-Horta was justified in his claims… I was only using the article to point out other instances where other nations acted militarily without UN approval.
Got it?
[quote]No. You’re still missing my point. Rascal did not make the argument that you made. Rascal stated merely that the US was (morally) wrong to invade without the blessing of the UN… for rascal, invading without UN authority/approval made the US invasion invalid/illegal.
You seem to be arguing that without UN approval and multilateral assistance, the invasion could not be won for logistical reasons… unless I have misread your argument.[/quote]
No, I am making the same argument that Rascal is. Our own laws obligate us to follow treaties we have signed, and that obligates us to get UN approval. If we don’t have that, we lose the moral high ground, a great source of US strength and influence in the world. The Bush administration sacrificed 50 years of hard work building international organizations that support US power with this stupid invasion ((in addition to needlessly squandering that power on a war we cannot win). That’s what I meant when I said that the lack of UN approval meant we lost when we invaded.
There is an old saying, War is Politics by other means, which many people take in a very simpleminded way, as if the saying expresses that war is a calculus of power. But they often forget that politics is the realm of values, and if we lose the political, we lose the war.
Of course, you are right, without UN support, we lost the logistical ability to handle this as well. All in all the failure to secure UN approval doomed us in every way.
Ok. Very sorry.
Hmmmm and what treaty exactly did the US sign that said we could not invade Iraq? The only treaty involved was the one Saddam flouted for 12 years which obligated him to PROVE that he had disarmed. Sorry, the UN is in various places like Bosnia and Kosovo and even Palestine and Cyprus for that matter and its record of rebuilding and promoting a return to civilian discourse is less than stellar. What exactly is the UN going to do about Iraq? What troops can it send? What will France or Germany or Russia send? The Pakistanis won’t go until the situation is calm like many other nations so what is the point of having them sign on precisely when we no longer need them? This as always will be an American show and we will as always be responsible for 90 percent of the effort, money, etc. While the gloom and doom over Iraq can be expected to rachet up until Bush is re-elected, I think that things have as always failed to live up to the dire predictions of the Left. Difficult? Yes, but this Greek chorus chiming in to warn Cassandra-like of impending doom, doom DOOOOOOOMMMMMM is getting a bit tiresome, but what do you expect from the Left? Sense?
Yes, Tigerman? I hope this isn’t going into the “you (Rascal) didn’t cry outrage about those incidents and thus any involvement in discussions about Iraq is selective outrage directed at the US” direction?
But to keep it short and sweet firstly you are citing a highly subjective statement, thus it proves nothing nor does it justify anything, and secondly I do not treat Iraqi differently as implied, i.e. all interventions were (and remain) illegal unless they are done with approval of the UN(SC) or in pure self-defense.
To explain this again I made a very BIG stink about Iraq because it is a recent/current case, illegal as I argued, with implications not able to be predicted. And that by an “institution” that claims to stand on high moral grounds and follow laws.
That others have done the same also stinks BIG time but they weren’t on for discussion, yet you cannot conlcude that I don’t care about them nor does it justify the current US actions. That (the latter) was repeatedly said before, i.e. comparisions to other violations proves nothing, including atrocities committed by Hitler and his Nazi Germany. The US invasion of Iraq was/is/remains illegal and stinks as any other violation committed before or in future. Clear?
Guess it was wishfull thinking (see above) … though I most wonder again how you actually reach your conclusions and then turn them into accusations, at least you make them appear as a factual statement.
Not responding to each and every post nor starting or involving myself into any discussion about each wrong-doing is not a measure for such!
Cover you ass by using “seem” in your statement, but you also knew I was on holiday and thus do not post as much as usual, as well if I do not response to every post (short of saying provocation) it proves nothing along your line of argumentation.
Depends upon your reply… 
What is subjective about the facts of prior invasion/intervention by other nations without UN approval? Nothing subjective there…
OK. So, you are saying that you condemn all instances of non-UN approved invasion and or intervention… right?
How would you have felt if some nation would have, absent UN approval, intervened in Rwanda to halt the massacre/genocide taking place there a few years ago? Would such an intervention have been condemned by you?
Just curious.
Please, Tigerman - of course those are facts but the person’s statement in saying it was ok to invade is subjective, and he further implied that a difference is made between those cases and Iraq.
And that’s what you questioned, wasn’t it? - I.e. you assumed I make such a difference, too.
No, I said they are all illegal (if we assume for a second that there is such a thing as international law, ok?). I condemn the invasion into Iraq though and perhaps other cases, but since I am not familiar with all the cases in detail (as far as one can claim that) I can’t specify them ad hoc.
Morally it would have been the right thing to do but it would have been illegal if a souvereign country was invaded, i.e. foreign forces stepped on the territory without approval of the acting government.
But I would further judge based on the extend of the intervention, i.e. is said nation dropping bombs all over the place or is it e.g. by means of ground forces that actively fight with armed groups only.
So Rascal:
You have finally agreed that the US action in Iraq is moral and that while not legal, was the right thing to do. In that case, perhaps it is time to also invade the UN to conduct some regime change and ensure a more democratic and just process? This would bring international law and morality together and thus satisfy you on the one hand and Tigerman and me on the other? Fair?
No fred, I referred to the question asked, i.e. Rwanda. That does not mean that I consider the invasion of Iraq right, not even morally.
Ousting Sadam was morally the right thing to do, the means used (aka the US-led invasion) were not, neither morally nor legally.
[quote=“Rascal”]That does not mean that I consider the invasion of Iraq right, not even morally.
Ousting Sadam was morally the right thing to do, the means used (aka the US-led invasion) were not, neither morally nor legally.[/quote]
Well, there is still quite a bit of debate regarding the legality of invading Iraq. But, I think the issue of morality is settled. There is even a body of “International Law” that states that military interventionism is legal on moral grounds, i.e., Humanitarianism… and that dictators such as Saddam are not entitled to claim protection of sovereignty.