SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 09-23-09, 01:52 PM

Neutrality could be had by mutual agreement for any defined period of time, at any place. that is not the problem of the UN, but the aesthetic assumption that all nations and cultures are equal, equal in a conditonal way and equal in value and respectability.

It is not popular to say that, but i do not give much for being popular. Neither people nor nations are all equal. People differ in conditions of birth and social contexts and different educational chances and genetic dispositions and/or genetic handicaps, and nations differ in historic conditions by which they had formed up, different cultural variables having different positive or negative impacts, different accessabilities to resources and economic strategic assets like geographic position.

And also are not all people and persons equal in value and importance for the whole. they are not all as morally "good" or criminally bad than any other.

What is much more important is to have a lawcode that serves the best ointerest of the whole, and to which each and all and everybody is subjiugated. Nobody should have the option to buy special status and special rights for him, nobody should be able to avoid or to hollow out the law, no matter his/her/its forestory and status and wealth an educaton or lack of. the law valid for all should and must include the spectrum of criminal and respetcably behavior possible to be shown by any individual person or nation, no matter it's status, potentials, history, record and power, so that the law can form evaluations and sentences for any possible case of dispute.

The equality of man - only makes sense in the meaning of equality bewfore the law, with the law unavailabole for manipulation by the more powerful ones. Every understanding of equality that goes beyond this, is seriously flawed and confused, ignores pratcial realties of human and nation's existence, and is overly ambitious, dreamful idealism misunderstanding the nature of things.

The UN does not understand this, and so every Peter and every Paul, every person and every nation is claimed to be not more and not less important than any other. All qualitative differences that as a matter of fact do exist, are ignored, what is better becomes lowered, what is lower gets declared and higher. No longer does the whole define the standards of up and down, better or worse, noble and miserable, good and bad, but every Peter and every Paul becomes the centre of the universe around which all others have to revolve.

Absurd. Idealistic values get betrayed in the name of these very idealistic values, and the thug terrorising the weaker becomes the chairman of a human rights commission. Absurd.

The conceptional nature of the UN is hopelessly flawed and FUBAR already at the very basis on which it's claims and thinking is depending. It borders escapism, but at minimum it is rejection of reality at least.

09-23-09, 01:52 PM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,678 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Neutrality could be had by mutual agreement for any defined period of time, at any place. that is not the problem of the UN, but the aesthetic assumption that all nations and cultures are equal, equal in a conditonal way and equal in value and respectability. It is not popular to say that, but i do not give much for being popular. Neither people nor nations are all equal. People differ in conditions of birth and social contexts and different educational chances and genetic dispositions and/or genetic handicaps, and nations differ in historic conditions by which they had formed up, different cultural variables having different positive or negative impacts, different accessabilities to resources and economic strategic assets like geographic position. And also are not all people and persons equal in value and importance for the whole. they are not all as morally "good" or criminally bad than any other. What is much more important is to have a lawcode that serves the best ointerest of the whole, and to which each and all and everybody is subjiugated. Nobody should have the option to buy special status and special rights for him, nobody should be able to avoid or to hollow out the law, no matter his/her/its forestory and status and wealth an educaton or lack of. the law valid for all should and must include the spectrum of criminal and respetcably behavior possible to be shown by any individual person or nation, no matter it's status, potentials, history, record and power, so that the law can form evaluations and sentences for any possible case of dispute. The equality of man - only makes sense in the meaning of equality bewfore the law, with the law unavailabole for manipulation by the more powerful ones. Every understanding of equality that goes beyond this, is seriously flawed and confused, ignores pratcial realties of human and nation's existence, and is overly ambitious, dreamful idealism misunderstanding the nature of things. The UN does not understand this, and so every Peter and every Paul, every person and every nation is claimed to be not more and not less important than any other. All qualitative differences that as a matter of fact do exist, are ignored, what is better becomes lowered, what is lower gets declared and higher. No longer does the whole define the standards of up and down, better or worse, noble and miserable, good and bad, but every Peter and every Paul becomes the centre of the universe around which all others have to revolve. Absurd. Idealistic values get betrayed in the name of these very idealistic values, and the thug terrorising the weaker becomes the chairman of a human rights commission. Absurd. The conceptional nature of the UN is hopelessly flawed and FUBAR already at the very basis on which it's claims and thinking is depending. It borders escapism, but at minimum it is rejection of reality at least. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.