141–150 of 353 posts
How long until Trump says something like, "He's a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed drug dealers. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were pushers. Over."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As usual, mostly western commentators sitting on their high horses pointing and pontificating with no idea of local context or understanding. Or maybe they do understand but simply do not agree with either the methods or the goal. > First of all, Duterte was elected overwhelmingly with a clear mandate of using brute violence to clear out drug dealers. This goes well beyond drug dealers (and even then it is not the…
If a people vote for autocracy, is that democratic? Should it be respected?
> "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."
Democracy requires that while the majority rules, the minority also have rights. Majoritarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism ) is similar to democracy, and some of its proponents argue is more democratic.
I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not respect a vote for autocracy, though of course this is abstract as my respect means nothing to those who voted that way, and I can do nothing to change things.
A democratic process must allow the minority at some point to be a majority. If you kill off the minorities, which yes, includes those accused of drug dealing, then there is no democracy. (And no, the frequent US policy of stripping the franchise from felons is not democratic.)
See also http://democracyweb.org/node/36 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .
What an idiot. The highest government official calling for extra-judicial killing of citizens should lead to a single indictment. What's really disturbing is that this guy got voted in. 30 people in 4 days.
Sadly history is not a morality play. In it immoral actions are often rewarded and idealists suffer shitty fates. I think that idiot is the wrong insult here (tyrant, cruel, despicable, scum and many others are all fine). But we live in a world in which Saudi Arabia is chair of the UN human rights council ... Laws, rights, constitutions - they mean a lot less when no force is capable or willing to enforce them.
I think it is entirely appropriate for the ruler of a country who instead of attacking the root cause of corruption in that country decides to give license to his population to go and kill each other instead.
> But we live in a world in which Saudi Arabia is chair of the UN human rights council ...
Ugh. I had to go and look that up to make sure you weren't pulling my leg. Sorry for not trusting you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a non-American I find the Trump/Hillary rhetoric extremely weird. Many "liberals" seem to think Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnate (which is absurd -- he's just a populist). Many "conservatives" seem to think Hillary is an "SJW" (which is equally absurd -- it's evident a lot of her more progressive stances are window dressing rather than deeply held convictions). Trump is an opportunistic buffoon, Hillary is cold a…
I agree with everything you say, apart from a part at the end. > ... and neither of them is going to openly do stupid drastic things like telling civilians to murder other people in the streets. Sure, that's valid. But while I'm no fan of Hillary, she is, as you said, cold and calculating, which I posit as the major difference between the two. Trump is hotheaded and impulsive, and while we'll never see him (knock on…
As usual, mostly western commentators sitting on their high horses pointing and pontificating with no idea of local context or understanding. First of all, Duterte was elected overwhelmingly with a clear mandate of using brute violence to clear out drug dealers. He was clear about it and he is delivering on that mandate. I have to accept, he has made a PR error by not calling them terrorists. At which point, he will…
There is no easy path towards progress, and certainly not by killing whomever we think is the cause of the problem.
Also let's be honest, there never was a society that went down the drain due to drugs. Not even close. They are just scapegoats. Society that went down the drain due to violence and mob-approved regimes? Loads.
DISCLAIMER: I am a Filipino and I live in the Philippines When an international media writes something without much knowledge on what's really going on it blows out of proportion. Now let me give you an idea of our situation here before the Duterte presidency. HISTORY ============== The Marcoses and Aquinos and their cronies, have brought the Philippines to its knees for decades (50 years). These families are what we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Addicts are humans, too. We're not talking about killing an addict in self-defense. We're talking about being explicitly told to seek out and murder addicts. Do you not see any moral problem with that?
Addicts create more problem to our society here. They killed innocent people just to buy stupid drug. You can choose to kill bad people or let it slide. The latter will cause more problem to society. Prison will do nothing. This is not scandinavian country.
DISCLAIMER: I am a Filipino and I live in the Philippines When an international media writes something without much knowledge on what's really going on it blows out of proportion. Now let me give you an idea of our situation here before the Duterte presidency. HISTORY ============== The Marcoses and Aquinos and their cronies, have brought the Philippines to its knees for decades (50 years). These families are what we…
Is this a joke? Surely something so utterly stupid can't be real. This man just gave the public free rein to murder and get away with it. Jesus this planet is insane.
Seems crazy but people of the Philippines knew what they were voting for. This is exactly what he did when he was mayor of Davao: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte#Davao_City_may... To play devil's advocate: Drugs and the criminal networks supported by drugs are a massive problem in the Philippines. Police are too weak and too corrupt to deal with it, but this is a solution that works, even if it does off…
A state that does kill random citizens has no legitimacy. states are formed by individuals in order to ensure they are not subject to random violence or violation of their rights. If a state can't or does not want to guarantee that nobody has any reason to respect the state. If police men kill random people because they think they deal drugs, the ordinary citizen has every right to kill police men because they think the police thinks they deal drugs. (or their fellow country men) In such a state of affairs, what's the purpose of a state? What's it's legitimacy? It doesn't have any. A complete lack of any institutions and anarchy would protect everybodys rights better.