Family vehemently criticised for not standing during the playing of the national anthem

[lovemystate]

26 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

Sure, honey. 

hey betacat ?

[crashnburn]

1 minute ago, Pillipilla said:

That's very true, this is exactly what we study in research ethics. We can't assume that what we are doing is ethical, especially because we define ethics the way we want it to be. That's exactly what I was trying to get to, when I started talking about animal violence because, being ethical is almost always dependent on how we define it to be. Now, we know that what India did in Kashmir is legal because they can change the law of the country. But we cannot say if it's ethical or not, because it depends on who we are talking to, I personally think that what they are doing in Kashmir is not ethical. But again, ethics are not well defined especially for a country. 

dude, kashmiris are people too.

and is there accountability for failure of Modi's approach after 2014? no. There is just more doubling down to provoke the worst nationalist sentiments across India.

please stick to your research. whether India exists or not, is immaterial to humanity.

[Pillipilla]

Just now, crashnburn said:

dude, kashmiris are people too.

and is there accountability for failure of Modi's approach after 2014? no. There is just more doubling down to provoke the worst nationalist sentiments across India.

please stick to your research. whether India exists or not, is immaterial to humanity.

Like I said, how do you define if what a country does is ethical or not? Like, is war ethical? Are crusades ethical? 

[lovemystate]

4 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

That's very true, this is exactly what we study in research ethics. We can't assume that what we are doing is ethical, especially because we define ethics the way we want it to be. That's exactly what I was trying to get to, when I started talking about animal violence because, being ethical is almost always dependent on how we define it to be. Now, we know that what India did in Kashmir is legal because they can change the law of the country. But we cannot say if it's ethical or not, because it depends on who we are talking to, I personally think that what they are doing in Kashmir is not ethical. But again, ethics are not well defined especially for a country. 

Ethic is elementary here for a person with some heart. Every people have a right for self determination and freedom to live as a nation. Ofcourse they may negotiate and maybe change their opinion or have a give and take. But they have a right and cant be taken away, 

[Pillipilla]

Just now, lovemystate said:

Ethic is elementary here for a person with some heart. Every people have a right for self determination and freedom to live as a nation. Ofcourse they may negotiate and maybe change their opinion or have a give and take. But they have a right and cant be taken away, 

Now, who determines that. Since we are human, we define that humans have to be free but animals need not necessarily be free. But as a country, is any war whatsoever ethical because no matter what you do, humans are bound to die in a war. 

[crashnburn]

Just now, Pillipilla said:

Like I said, how do you define if what a country does is ethical or not? Like, is war ethical? Are crusades ethical? 

the existence of a country itself is unethical. but it exists because it serves a specific purpose (for specific set of people).

it has a constitution and procedures to rewrite the constitution according to the democratic will of the people under its territories.

the job of a country is to simply follow its own laws, and create new ones within its constitution. Not to take unilateral decisions to imprison millions when its clearly against its own laws.

[lovemystate]

7 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

Now, who determines that. Since we are human, we define that humans have to be free but animals need not necessarily be free. But as a country, is any war whatsoever ethical because no matter what you do, humans are bound to die in a war. 

Are you seriously suggesting that kashmiris are animals ?

[Pillipilla]

6 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

the existence of a country itself is unethical. but it exists because it serves a specific purpose (for specific set of people).

it has a constitution and procedures to rewrite the constitution according to the democratic will of the people under its territories.

the job of a country is to simply follow its own laws, and create new ones within its constitution. Not to take unilateral decisions to imprison millions when its clearly against its own laws.

I don't question the legality of what India did in Kashmir. If someone were to contest the scrapping of Article 370 in the Supreme Court, the Government made enough tweaks  before scrapping article 370 that they will have more than sufficient defense to defend their stance in the court of law. The question is more about how ethical their stance is, suppressing their freedom. 

[Pillipilla]

2 minutes ago, lovemystate said:

Are you seriously suggesting that kashmiris are animals ?

No, I am suggesting that ethics as you define it to a person is different from ethics as you define it to a country. I only gave an example of animals to suggest that ethics are different depending on how you see it. But as a country, war ethics are not necessarily always in favor of protecting humans. If that were the case, no country will have an army, no country will wage a war. 

[crashnburn]

3 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

No, I am suggesting that ethics as you define it to a person is different from ethics as you define it to a country. I only gave an example of animals to suggest that ethics are different depending on how you see it. But as a country, war ethics are not necessarily always in favor of protecting humans. If that were the case, no country will have an army, no country will wage a war. 

The war India is waging is not a defensive war. its not even a war. Its colonial subjugation of kashmiris. I've never been so ashamed of my Indian heritage. and wish India fails.

[crashnburn]

8 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

I don't question the legality of what India did in Kashmir. If someone were to contest the scrapping of Article 370 in the Supreme Court, the Government made enough tweaks  before scrapping article 370 that they will have more than sufficient defense to defend their stance in the court of law. The question is more about how ethical their stance is, suppressing their freedom. 

legally it is untenable. this govt is not even as clever as the earlier bigot govt congress. 

if supreme courts aren't full of assholes, it will be struck in court.

yeah yeah, you'll tell me I don't know how real worlds work. I know exactly how they do and feel  powerless against it, while you dont care about it except when you want to poke those who care.

[crashnburn]

There's nothing to love about India anymore for me. 

[DummyVariable]

56 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

country is not a person. also some countries have armies so large they can totally destroy its dissidents.

the imperfections we talk about here are not about piffling policy choices like free college tuition. we are talking about rape and murder in your name. would you be okay if your partner is a rapist? but you would be okay if your country killed and raped people in your name.

anyway you are free to love your country man. decency is overrated anyway. just know the game you are playing, and that you country is not a victim. it is in fact the biggest asshole nation in its region.

Can you post rape statistics in Kashmir? People being dead is a totally different issue.

[crashnburn]

14 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

I don't question the legality of what India did in Kashmir. If someone were to contest the scrapping of Article 370 in the Supreme Court, the Government made enough tweaks  before scrapping article 370 that they will have more than sufficient defense to defend their stance in the court of law. The question is more about how ethical their stance is, suppressing their freedom. 

the existence of country is itself unethical dude. It has some utility, thats all.  and it will outlive its utility the longer it exists.

as for India, it has neither utility nor ethics. southern states will attain south east asian levels of prosperity if they had their own currency they could manipulate. Its obvious from all policy choices they made since 1980

[crashnburn]

3 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

Can you post rape statistics in Kashmir? People being dead is a totally different issue.

not interested.