|
Rodatose posted:I think what I posted is one-sided, in that the track record of the particular option of "US-led intervention" is such that no matter what the situation it is applied to, it will turn out worse, so the option is not worth even discussing, much less supporting. No matter the particulars of the situation on the ground itself. The problem with your approach is that it values aesthetics and optics over any actual moral reasoning. The problem, as I see it, is that there is no actual neutral position possible for the US due to the fact that doing nothing is tacit support of the repressive and deadly methods Maduro uses to keep the flow of oil to the US going. Bullets kill people, but so does starvation, lack of HIV/AIDS drugs, lack of antibiotics, proper medical care, etc. and those deaths should be counted, they are not morally neutral deaths! The body count in the "keep the status-quo" camp is piling up. Frankly, this is a very careful moral calculus, if you truly believe that the body count will be less in the "non-intervention" camp then so be it, but at least acknowledge the fact that it is not in any way "peaceful." It's also important to acknowledge the benefits Americans stand to reap in the "non-intervention" camp and, to borrow a rhetorical flourish from a few pages ago, it seems as though there is no price too high (in actual body count) for the non-interventionist camp.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
elgatofilo posted:The problem with your approach is that it values aesthetics and optics over any actual moral reasoning. The problem with your approach is that the US has been here a few dozen times before and the actual results of what happens are disastrous for the people living there. Like they've literally appointed a guy who did the Contra poo poo to handle this... ? quote:It's also important to acknowledge the benefits Americans stand to reap in the "non-intervention" camp and, to borrow a rhetorical flourish from a few pages ago, it seems as though there is no price too high (in actual body count) for the non-interventionist camp. Also I think these continued impassioned indictments of how everyone who thinks maybe US invasion in South America isn't a good idea is really a monstrous devil aren't working in your favor tbh. 1/3rd of the entire population of Syria are refugees, another third is in need of humanitarian aid, and there are 500,000 dead. You want that in Venezuela? COMRADES fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
pretty bad sign for the state of our back bench of contra guys when we've only got THE contra guy to appoint after all these decades
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Oh okay he only collaborated a little bit in the war crimes that's fine then nothing to see here. If you can't take a step back and at least acknowledge that maybe people who don't want intervention aren't just evil shitheads who want cheap gas I dunno what conversation there is to be had. I still don't get that line of argument because again the US right wing is salivating over the oil privatization. quote:doing nothing is tacit support of the repressive and deadly methods Maduro uses to keep the flow of oil to the US going. like in all due respect I don't understand what you're talking about. You want the oil to just be directly controlled by the US instead? idgi COMRADES fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:The problem with your approach is that the US has been here a few dozen times before and the actual results of what happens are disastrous for the people living there. Like they've literally appointed a guy who did the Contra poo poo to handle this... ? Intervention has been defined in this thread as being anyone disfavoring the Maduro regime at all. Nobody is presenting you with false dilemmas, American oil companies are in Venezuela and they have always been there, at no point has Maduro ever stopped oil exports to the USA. I've repeatedly planted "non-intervention" as a scenario where the US pulls all interest out of Venezuela and refuses to deal in Venezuelan oil until the internal situation is resolved and this has been struck down as "intervention." I do, personally, find it to be a monstrous position where "non-intervention" just happens to be a super convenient one that benefits the US. Your repeated lack of acknowledgement that the status-quo benefits the US is not helping your case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Intervention has been defined in this thread as being anyone disfavoring the Maduro regime at all. Nobody is presenting you with false dilemmas, American oil companies are in Venezuela and they have always been there, at no point has Maduro ever stopped oil exports to the USA. Dude forgive me for not following every single post in this thread wherein you narrowly defined terms and proceed to insult other people based on those terms. You still have yet to explain how total oil privatization on behalf of US companies is supposed to be better than Maduro selling the US oil. quote:the US pulls all interest out of Venezuela and refuses to deal in Venezuelan oil until the internal situation is resolved Isn't this already what is happening anyway? So... ???
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:invalidate the opinions of an entire continent and people elgatofilo posted:Therefore, the only moral option is for Americans and their massive oil conglomerates to conveniently continue benefiting from looted Venezuelan oil to keep my gas prices under 3$. I can't help it if all this non-intervention looks exactly like colonialism! quote:I didn't shoot my husband, I only benefited from the life insurance policy when I hired that hit-man to take him out! quote:I would really like a run-down of how, precisely Maduro has been anti-USA in anything but his florid rhetoric. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
quote:Your repeated lack of acknowledgement that the status-quo benefits the US is not helping your case. If the status quo was so beneficial to the USA then it wouldn't be in the process of attempting to aid in the overthrow of Maduro's government. That's some basic logic there. I'm not trying to be a douche or anything but that just doesn't make sense. If the USA loves Maduro and benefits so much why are we doing sanctions and freezing assets and recognizing Guaido as the President?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Leaving the Venezuelan case aside, this is a pretty novel and insidious way to execute a regime change. From one week to the next, declare that the legitimate authority of the country is someone aligned with you, and then just straight commandeering all of the country's international funds and assets and handing them over to said legitimate authority. If I were one of the countries getting uppity with the US I'd be very careful of how much money and assets I keep abroad, as they can be handed over to my internal opponent from one day to the next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:Dude forgive me for not following every single post in this thread wherein you narrowly defined terms and proceed to insult other people based on those terms. Where is the evidence that privatization of all Venezuelan oil is something that is happening? That wouldn't even be possible under the current bond structure of PDVSA considering the huge number of investors in PDVSA bonds, PDVSA is already virtually privatized as a result of massive over-leveraging on the part of the current regime. The only shot at maintaing the public aspect of PDVSA is for bond-holders to restructure their debt and allow the liquidation of PDVSA after which a new public company that controls Venezuela's oil wealth (unencumbered by the private interests that have taken control of it) can be formed. This will not be possible without the cooperation of Western countries and Russia/China, this has already been discussed, PDVSA does not currently have the infrastructure to be self-sufficient and relies on Western countries for all of its oil processing. Rodatose posted:It would be idiotic to think that an entire continent and its people has a monolithic voice that one person's voice represents, which is why democracy is so important. One should be very concerned about the number of military and parliamentary coups against elected governments since the pink tide, in that case. Ok, this is the first actual alternative I've heard and would actually be totally in support of this. How would you accomplish ungluing Maduro from the teat of the PDVSA cash cow to actually allow this plan to be executed? Rodatose posted:This is not the best analogy when currently pressure is being put on the bank of London to transfer a hoard of gold to the opposition while in the process of trying to depose the current leader. Rodatose posted:As I've said, it literally doesn't matter what the target of a US-led intervention is or is not doing. The US military forms long-standing grudges over anything seized decades earlier, or with anyone that provides even the impression of unfavorable conditions for free global investment. The kicker which decides whether simply mercenaries should be sent in to obtain unexploited natural resources or whether more thorough intervention should be undertaken is whether there is a public system in the target country which can be plundered for a profit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Leaving the Venezuelan case aside, this is a pretty novel and insidious way to execute a regime change. From one week to the next, declare that the legitimate authority of the country is someone aligned with you, and then just straight commandeering all of the country's international funds and assets and handing them over to said legitimate authority. Or the smart money gets the gently caress out of dodge,theres an exodus of capital and strong currency and your economy is double hosed because the smart money will just hide it in a shady fiscal paradise, instead of the usual reputable fiscal paradises.which...is pretty much how this goes.the only real novel thing is the us straight up telling other countries "ei, dont give their money or do any deals with those guys,or there will be...consequences" which, again, was already the implied status quo, but like everything else in the trump administration, they are saying the quiet part aloud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Where is the evidence that privatization of all Venezuelan oil is something that is happening? That wouldn't even be possible under the current bond structure of PDVSA considering the huge number of investors in PDVSA bonds, PDVSA is already virtually privatized as a result of massive over-leveraging on the part of the current regime. John Bolton at 6m talking about how great it will be for US companies to be producing the oil in Venezuela: https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5993599263001/#sp=show-clips Also the ‘Law Governing the Transition to Democracy’ the National Assembly is considering which clearly states they are going to restructure private assets. quote:“Public companies will be subject to a restructuring process that ensures their efficient and transparent management, including through public-private agreements.” COMRADES fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I think what I posted is one-sided, in that the track record of the particular option of "US-led intervention" is such that no matter what the situation it is applied to, it will turn out worse, so the option is not worth even discussing, much less supporting. No matter the particulars of the situation on the ground itself. Of course the main example given of US intervention being ‘good’ there were two nuclear bombs were dropped and cities were firebombed into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Bullets kill people, but so does starvation, lack of HIV/AIDS drugs, lack of antibiotics, proper medical care, etc. and those deaths should be counted, they are not morally neutral deaths! The body count in the "keep the status-quo" camp is piling up. quote:-avoidance of intervention to potentially improve conditions with humanitarian crises in right wing authoritarian countries, showing that humanitarianism is not actually the aim of interventionism, but rather, maintaining military and economic hegemony by getting rid of any actors that don't agree to support that hegemony. To your point, we could also discuss how there is currently sufficient food supply to end world hunger, and that the capability exists to vastly cut mortality rates by not attempting to enforce expensive drug patents internationally while also investing in worldwide medical training and infrastructure. We could discuss how the Reagan administration laughed off those dying from HIV and AIDS because it was happening mostly to gay and african people - people they saw as the "other". Do you think that the people in power, the ones who represent an international status quo, who could make serious headway toward solving these problems if they wanted to, will have a sudden moral awakening in a land far from their own, among a people they don't know? elgatofilo posted:I've repeatedly planted "non-intervention" as a scenario where the US pulls all interest out of Venezuela and refuses to deal in Venezuelan oil until the internal situation is resolved and this has been struck down as "intervention." I do, personally, find it to be a monstrous position where "non-intervention" just happens to be a super convenient one that benefits the US. Your repeated lack of acknowledgement that the status-quo benefits the US is not helping your case. quote:This is another aesthetic argument. Venezuela needs the US to extract its oil wealth due to its dependence on American refineries. Maduro has done nothing to remove this dependence, so much so that the just announced oil embargo has the result of halting virtually all oil production in Venezuela. (the reason for such sanctions is because crude oil is a low-grade commodity with much less use compared to refined petroleum products - something that might allow for diversification of the economy)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Don't forget the financial papers casually salivating over it: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...ons-law-sources Guaido plans Citgo leadership shakeup, new Venezuela hydrocarbons law: sources quote:In addition to reshaping the leadership of Citgo, Guaido plans to introduce a new national hydrocarbons law that establishes flexible fiscal and contractual terms for projects adapted to oil prices and the oil investment cycle, as well as enact an anti-corruption law aimed at PDVSA, sources said. I think there is plenty of evidence that there will be privatization. The US wouldn't be interested otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:If the status quo was so beneficial to the USA then it wouldn't be in the process of attempting to aid in the overthrow of Maduro's government. That's some basic logic there. For reference, read this article on the recently arrested former body-guard of Hugo Chavez and the lavish wealth he flaunted here in South Florida. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/how-venezuelan-crisis-plays-out-wellington-horse-country/YTqknaCG3NVK8b2I2OygpO/ There are entire skyscrapers going up in Miami right now thanks to stolen Venezuelan oil wealth. Being close to ground zero here I forget that not everyone is seeing Venezuelan wealth stolen and diverted directly into US pockets as I am. There are numerous reasons for intervention (you could argue that failed states in the western hemisphere are not in US interests.) However, vulture capitalism is not one of them, vulture capitalism is the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:There are entire skyscrapers going up in Miami right now thanks to stolen Venezuelan oil wealth. Being close to ground zero here I forget that not everyone is seeing Venezuelan wealth stolen and diverted directly into US pockets as I am. OK well if by intervention you mean stop doing that then I agree. If you mean intervention by US military in any way then that will probably end up worse. I'ma read that article and be back later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Where is the evidence that privatization of all Venezuelan oil is something that is happening? That wouldn't even be possible under the current bond structure of PDVSA considering the huge number of investors in PDVSA bonds, PDVSA is already virtually privatized as a result of massive over-leveraging on the part of the current regime. Yeah its kind of confusing to see people up in arms about the a new government selling off the PDVSA, considering deals like this were happening in 2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-idUSKBN1EB0JN quote:MOSCOW (Reuters) - Venezuela has awarded licenses to a unit of Russian oil major Rosneft (ROSN.MM) to develop two offshore gas fields, Rosneft said in a statement. PDVSA is in a real bad state. If they want to get production back up they are probably going to need foreign investment, and they're going to have to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Presenting Nipples posted:Of course the main example given of US intervention being ‘good’ there were two nuclear bombs were dropped and cities were firebombed into oblivion. The reason i've used the term "US-led intervention" is because the US was not the principal military power of their side in either WWI nor WWII. They didn't start it and had to be drawn into both (though with WWI this is more questionable, WWII may have showed the US being content to watch, with the number of investors who were playing at both sides). One might ask why no Marshall Plan was taken for any other intervention. Two theories for why the marshall plan was an exception are: -curbing spread of communism in a poor, war-torn region that could be susceptible to its message -the US did not have the same feelings of cultural inferiority toward Europeans (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese, who had been been welcomed into the anglo-european international order thanks to the forced opening of japan starting nearly a century prior leading to their christianization for the sake of opening trade into the far-east. As teddy roosevelt said, they were "honorary aryans"), so they actually cared about leaving some infrastructure behind that allowed for self-governance. The flipside to this is switching from fighting the Spanish to fighting the Filipinos they alleged to be liberating due to their "inability to self-govern". (Unsurprisingly, the turn-of-the-century racial pseudoscience theories that such claims by US high command were based on ended up getting rehashed for the Iraq War in top warrior-scholar works like "The Arab Mind".) Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Maybe you missed this point: I agree with all of these points and as a liberal I have used all of these talking points. I think drug patents are lethal, I do think we can work much harder towards solving world hunger and that the current system of medical training is rigged; I do believe all these things create unnecessary deaths we benefit from. Which is why, I am horrified to see fellow liberals using what amounts to Breitbart talking points to dismiss their use of Venezuelan oil. I find this to be a serious moral blind-spot. quote:The US pulling out all interest and refusing to deal in venezuelan oil is acceptable. Calling for international sanctions that other countries in the US's sphere must abide by is interventionism. How do sanctions announced less than 2 years ago have an effect on policies that have been 20 years in the making? Maduro and his predecessor Chavez never made any effort to move Venezuela towards a self-sufficient state in the 20 years they were in power despite repeated calls for them to do so. Instead, they chose to use PDVSA as their personal piggy bank to fund their mansions in Miami.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:There are numerous reasons for intervention (you could argue that failed states in the western hemisphere are not in US interests.) However, vulture capitalism is not one of them, vulture capitalism is the status quo. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Which is why, I am horrified to see fellow liberals using what amounts to Breitbart talking points to dismiss their use of Venezuelan oil. I find this to be a serious moral blind-spot. Any foreign actors that even whisper about control of oil in the early stages of intervention should be immediately seen as not having the best interest of the people at heart
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
I think it would be good to remember that it's not just US intervention on the table here, but US intervention led by the Trump administration. if the US was ever capable of a benevolent intervention, the current state of government is the utter antithesis of that right now. that said, it seems like the debate is basically over whether or not venezuela has already hit rock bottom. it's pretty tough to be told as bad as the state of one's country is right now, involving the US will definitely be much worse while poverty and food insecurity are loving endemic, plus the authoritarian repression at play. but, again, the loving Trump administration
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:... I'm sure they have the best intentions and will be summoning the best people for the job: https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/1090015496307703812
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
I agree with the guy who believes that Venezuela should choose autarky and the Juche ideology to resolve its hunger crisis, as indeed the highly successful Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was able to do, eventually, at some human cost but having forever safeguarded itself from threats of regime change thanks to its successful nuclear weapons program. That’s what Maduro should be doing. You can’t argue with results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I think it would be good to remember that it's not just US intervention on the table here, but US intervention led by the Trump administration. if the US was ever capable of a benevolent intervention, the current state of government is the utter antithesis of that right now. This is a good point! Even if the administration was completely altruistic or was being led by the nose by the rest of the region on the issue, the fact remains it's made up of stupid stubborn idiots who will doubtlessly find ways to intensify the crisis, particularly as Maduro is also a stupid stubborn idiot who has already clearly shown he's not just going to back down while his country is suffering so long as there's personal profit to be had. It's really a no-win scenario, and the only possible good result is if Maduro decides to take the golden parachute before Bolton or Trump get a chance to implement literally any ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:This is a good point! Even if the administration was completely altruistic or was being led by the nose by the rest of the region on the issue, the fact remains it's made up of stupid stubborn idiots who will doubtlessly find ways to intensify the crisis, particularly as Maduro is also a stupid stubborn idiot who has already clearly shown he's not just going to back down while his country is suffering so long as there's personal profit to be had. It is a either or situation, either Maduro implements his robbery/moronic plans or Trump implements his crap. That said, Russia and China know the US is going to use Venezuela and their loans as a pressure point in the broader geopolitical game and there is little reason for them to stop now considering the US has every reason to try to punish them in return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:the only possible good result is if Maduro decides to take the golden parachute before Bolton or Trump get a chance to implement literally any ideas. The only possible good result is the one in which a US puppet is installed as head of state, in which case Bolton and Trump won't have a chance to implement any ideas. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
not a cult posted:The only possible good result is the one in which a US puppet is installed as head of state, in which case Bolton and Trump won't have a chance to implement any ideas. Makes sense.  As long as Maduro is in power, the price controls will remain, the PSUV leadership will continue to loot the country, and people will continue to starve. Getting him out of power bloodlessly, peacefully, and (sort of) legally with the promise of new elections is the best anyone can hope for at this point, from my point of view. And if he gets out sooner, that's less time that Trump or Bolton would have to try anything immensely stupid like an actual show of military force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
What you're describing IS an intervention. It's America deciding who gets to lead a country, first squeezing it through sanctions and international pressure which lead to things going to utter poo poo and then saying "Well, this other guy looks OK *wink* *wink*".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
there is the chance that maduro does not blink nor budge and everyone kind of just has their bluff called, the opposition goes nowhere and things go on but this does not seem infinitely tenable
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
Some posters seem unable to grasp one can oppose both Maduro *and* active US intervention. Lecturing Venezuelans that they should somehow stop protesting Maduro's regime that is robbing and starving them because the US suddenly got involved is insulting to the people suffering daily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Some posters seem unable to grasp one can oppose both Maduro *and* active US intervention. Another rich Venezuelan touting his bourgeois propaganda. It's convenient that Maduro's supporters don't have internet and can't speak English.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Some posters seem unable to grasp one can oppose both Maduro *and* active US intervention. Actually, those posters are grasping that pretty well, they just see it as what it is - a morally correct but ultimately weak stance that will see you either ruled by a US puppet or embroiled in a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Some posters seem unable to grasp one can oppose both Maduro *and* active US intervention. The US didn't just "get involved" they masterminded this coup attempt. This isn't just a protest against Maduro's regime, it's an economic war being waged on the entire country. Acebuckeye13 posted:This is a good point! Even if the administration was completely altruistic or was being led by the nose by the rest of the region on the issue, the fact remains it's made up of stupid stubborn idiots who will doubtlessly find ways to intensify the crisis, particularly as Maduro is also a stupid stubborn idiot who has already clearly shown he's not just going to back down while his country is suffering so long as there's personal profit to be had. I dunno why anybody thinks that someone is going to give up their own sovereignty because you performed an act of legal jiu-jitsu, or are going to do sanctions, or are threatening to invade their country and overthrow them by force. If you give up then you're guaranteed to lose. The only way to win is by resisting, but people somehow persist in believing that this time we can make the bad men go away if we make all the right arguments and apply the right amount of force. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
not a cult posted:Actually, those posters are grasping that pretty well, they just see it as what it is - a morally correct but ultimately weak stance that will see you either ruled by a US puppet or embroiled in a civil war. The opposition could renounce US support; but given the reality is that Maduro already is starving Venezuela and has overthrown the Constitution, I personally don't blame them for being open to it. It's beyond me at least to tell starving people they have to keep starving. Ideally Maduro would go peacefully, as a number of venegoons have agreed, and food aid can start flowing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
The current state of things is sort of like the Millgram experiment, except there's a person who's actually being tortured and the experimenter is the guy you're trying to get to leave the room. You push the button and the person on the other side of the line goes through excruciating pain. Nothing happens. You push the button again and the person who is strapped to the torture device howls in agony. Nothing happens. You push the button again and still the experimenter who isn't going through any kind of pain won't leave the room. "Wow!" you exclaim. "I can't believe this guy is a stupid stubborn idiot who has clearly shown he's not just going to back down while his man is suffering."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The current state of things is sort of like the Millgram experiment, except there's a person who's actually being tortured and the experimenter is the guy you're trying to get to leave the room. You push the button and the person on the other side of the line goes through excruciating pain. Nothing happens. You push the button again and the person who is strapped to the torture device howls in agony. Nothing happens. You push the button again and still the experimenter who isn't going through any kind of pain won't leave the room. Except the person causing the pain in your scenario is Maduro, the experimenter
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Except the person causing the pain in your scenario is Maduro, the experimenter Ok so let's extrapolate how you're interpreting this analogy. So you, the guy pushing the button thinks that Maduro the experimenter is going to get tortured until he leaves the room. Yet every time you push the button the other person gets tortured instead. Do you see the problem here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ok so let's extrapolate how you're interpreting this analogy. So you, the guy pushing the button thinks that Maduro the experimenter is going to get tortured until he leaves the room. Yet every time you push the button the other person gets tortured instead. Do you see the problem here? No, the reality is the experimenter is repeatedly pushing the button as the victim screams; you've been trying to get him to stop by peaceful protest for years, all the experimenter does is laugh and crank up the voltage. Your button is connected to nothing, apparently. Someone outside bursts in and threatens the experimenter unless he leaves. You pop up and start defending the experimenter, and lecturing the protesters, and are shocked to find them not siding with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:29
|
|