For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It's hard to wade through all the crap you wrote that doesn't even address the issue of embargoes, but let me say again, embargoes are rarely if ever successful, always harm innocent people, and are therefore crimes against humanity.rantal wrote:Can you not read I cite one abovebobevenson wrote:Again, I ask for a justification of any embargo!
all the best, rantal
bobevenson wrote:It's hard to wade through all the crap you wrote that doesn't even address the issue of embargoes, but let me say again, embargoes are rarely if ever successful, always harm innocent people, and are therefore crimes against humanity.rantal wrote:Can you not read I cite one abovebobevenson wrote:Again, I ask for a justification of any embargo!
all the best, rantal
Of course, as usual, you don't want to explain yourself since it might start a new trend.rantal wrote:Almost an argument, congratulations, howeer the reasoning is faulty.
It should be obvious why your reasoning is faulty;bobevenson wrote:Of course, as usual, you don't want to explain yourself since it might start a new trend.rantal wrote:Almost an argument, congratulations, howeer the reasoning is faulty.
Even were it true that embargoes always harm innocent people, it does not necessarily follow that they are crimes against humanity. Many things harm innocent people. To show it is a crime against humanity it would be necessary to show that the harm done outweighed the potential benefit and that the harm was serious.but let me say again, embargoes are rarely if ever successful, always harm innocent people, and are therefore crimes against humanity.
I guess what you're saying is that if a crook hits you over the head and takes your money, the only defense he needs is that the potential benefit to him outweighs your loss and the bump on your head.rantal wrote:It should be obvious why your reasoning is faulty;bobevenson wrote:Of course, as usual, you don't want to explain yourself since it might start a new trend.rantal wrote:Almost an argument, congratulations, howeer the reasoning is faulty.
Even were it true that embargoes always harm innocent people, it does not necessarily follow that they are crimes against humanity. Many things harm innocent people. To show it is a crime against humanity it would be necessary to show that the harm done outweighed the potential benefit and that the harm was serious.but let me say again, embargoes are rarely if ever successful, always harm innocent people, and are therefore crimes against humanity.
Again, your typical response of criticizing without specifically making a point, your ring-around-the-rosy approach.rantal wrote:Please read more carefully and think before you reply
all the best, rantal