It was allow-able to, if not incumbent on everyman to enter into measures of resistance when the probable mischiefs of resistance, appear less to him than the probable mischiefs of obedience. This applies for both citizens & government (working for public welfare). -- Jeremy Bentham
"One of the greatest disasters that happened to modern civilization was for democracy to inscribe "liberty" on its banners instead of "justice." Because "liberty" was considered the ideal it was not long until some men interpreted it as meaning "freedom from justice"; then when religion and decent government attempted to bring them back to justice, organised into "freedom groups" they protested that their constitutional and natural rights were being violated." Fulton J. Sheen
I feel that especially at the guy arguing around the 40:00 mark, they lose this question of can something be morally wrong but politically correct. because there isn't a concensus on what constitutes "politically right" in this debate, some interpreted it as politically effective like the person who mentioned Nixon, while the guy around 40:00 min is looking at "politically right" as a larger scale moral action (ie. Innocent civilian deaths at times might be accepted to achieve certain goals like destroying terrorist sites or bombing the nazis). The girl phoebe at the start called out the inherent flaw at the start of the debate of separating politics from morality. However I think the Keir guy's point remains relevant because we don't just decide moral truths, people disagree on them and they need to be debated. I think Keir's point was something like, pre-suposing that people will always disagree about the moral good, we need to instead establish a fair method of debating these moral value problems so that people can debate forever and make progress not war. And lastly that I think kier would argue that what defines an illegitimate government is one where the method of deciding moral values is corrupted or domineered.
"All the conversationalists who have become conscious of the real issue are already saying of our ideal exactly what used to be said of the Socialists' ideal. They are saying that private property is too ideal not to be impossible. They are saying that private enterprise is too good to be true. They are saying that the idea of ordinary men owning ordinary possessions is against the laws of political economy and requires an alteration in human nature." Gilbert K. Chesterton "As long as the decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of human activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of Marxism." Fulton J. Sheen
This is a poorly researched documentary: 1) TSMC only fabricates chips. It does not produce wafers, minerals chemicals, equipment or even chip design or has no monopoly in assembling and testing the final chips. So whilst the Taiwanese minister is trying to talk up the importance of Taiwan, AJ should balance that sale pitch 2) China uses a lot of chips to make toys, appliances, smartphones to EVs. Hence several years ago, it outlined a plan to localise much of the entire chip supply chain. Be clear, the main objective was to support its manufacturing base with some, for sure, for military uses. 3) US is now trying to follow China but seems more for military intend than economics as US dont have that sizeable an industrial base save for oil and gas, chemicals, planes and weapons So current chip industry is a bit like an old style dept store, one floor for ladies, another for the guys and kids get the floor. China is trying to own the entire dept store while the US is trying to get various floors with Taiwan being one suchfloor to support its ambition - one problem is who will buy all the chips
... with our invited guest speakers, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin
It was allow-able to, if not incumbent on everyman to enter into measures of resistance when the probable mischiefs of resistance, appear less to him than the probable mischiefs of obedience.
This applies for both citizens & government (working for public welfare).
-- Jeremy Bentham
"One of the greatest disasters that happened to modern civilization was for democracy to inscribe "liberty" on its banners instead of "justice." Because "liberty" was considered the ideal it was not long until some men interpreted it as meaning "freedom from justice"; then when religion and decent government attempted to bring them back to justice, organised into "freedom groups" they protested that their constitutional and natural rights were being violated."
Fulton J. Sheen
It would be interesting to see you two debate these points.
@@defenderofwisdom I would never debate a moral relativist. I'd have a discussion.
@@Zoomo2697 Either way. Let's make it happen.
I feel that especially at the guy arguing around the 40:00 mark, they lose this question of can something be morally wrong but politically correct. because there isn't a concensus on what constitutes "politically right" in this debate, some interpreted it as politically effective like the person who mentioned Nixon, while the guy around 40:00 min is looking at "politically right" as a larger scale moral action (ie. Innocent civilian deaths at times might be accepted to achieve certain goals like destroying terrorist sites or bombing the nazis). The girl phoebe at the start called out the inherent flaw at the start of the debate of separating politics from morality. However I think the Keir guy's point remains relevant because we don't just decide moral truths, people disagree on them and they need to be debated. I think Keir's point was something like, pre-suposing that people will always disagree about the moral good, we need to instead establish a fair method of debating these moral value problems so that people can debate forever and make progress not war. And lastly that I think kier would argue that what defines an illegitimate government is one where the method of deciding moral values is corrupted or domineered.
9.17 look at the girl at the back next to the guy in yellow shirt. OMG!
She does it again at 35:54... (Bless her, we all do THAT!!!) But MAYBE not when you're on camera... xx SF
who cares.
"All the conversationalists who have become conscious of the real issue are already saying of our ideal exactly what used to be said of the Socialists' ideal. They are saying that private property is too ideal not to be impossible. They are saying that private enterprise is too good to be true. They are saying that the idea of ordinary men owning ordinary possessions is against the laws of political economy and requires an alteration in human nature."
Gilbert K. Chesterton
"As long as the decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of human activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of Marxism."
Fulton J. Sheen
At 10 minutes I thought he's getting ready for the front bench
What a set of self indulgent speeches
2:10
This is a poorly researched documentary:
1) TSMC only fabricates chips. It does not produce wafers, minerals chemicals, equipment or even chip design or has no monopoly in assembling and testing the final chips. So whilst the Taiwanese minister is trying to talk up the importance of Taiwan, AJ should balance that sale pitch
2) China uses a lot of chips to make toys, appliances, smartphones to EVs. Hence several years ago, it outlined a plan to localise much of the entire chip supply chain. Be clear, the main objective was to support its manufacturing base with some, for sure, for military uses.
3) US is now trying to follow China but seems more for military intend than economics as US dont have that sizeable an industrial base save for oil and gas, chemicals, planes and weapons
So current chip industry is a bit like an old style dept store, one floor for ladies, another for the guys and kids get the floor. China is trying to own the entire dept store while the US is trying to get various floors with Taiwan being one suchfloor to support its ambition - one problem is who will buy all the chips
This more is accepted in the evil world.