Philosophy Now Forum

I've never understood it either. Nobody wins on it. I mean, there may be some political prisoners on cuba and lack of democratically elected officials, but Cuba isn't exactly a threat to the world peace, the population doesn't really "suffer" as such so that the embargo could be called pressure on the political leadership (in fact, Cuba is world-renowned for its disaster aid in the field of healthcare, it's not exactly close to any of the old "banana republics" nor a tyrannical dictatorship, although it is a dictatorship in strict sense with a paranoid leadership with some reason to be paranoid. A good deal of people have tried killing Castro over the years.).

The day the U.S. ends all sanctions. Cuba is gonna make money, and Americans get a nice new close place to go travelling and many Americans might save a ton of money on cheap but high-quality Cuban healthcare. The more money Cubans make also, the more they will be able to buy, and the more they buy the more freedom they will demand and more likely the more freedom they are gonna be given. Consider what happens when Cubans start mass-purchasing computers for instance ^^

Ah...Cuban cigars.

bobevenson wrote:Trade embargoes are crimes against humanity that should be tried in the World Court at The Hague, and convicted perpetrators hanged.

So, you say but offer no reason or evidence for this tendentious claim

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Trade embargoes are crimes against humanity that should be tried in the World Court at The Hague, and convicted perpetrators hanged.

So, you say but offer no reason or evidence for this tendentious claim

all the best, rantal

You keep saying the same thing on every thread.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Trade embargoes are crimes against humanity that should be tried in the World Court at The Hague, and convicted perpetrators hanged.

So, you say but offer no reason or evidence for this tendentious claim

all the best, rantal

You keep saying the same thing on every thread.

That is because your posts amount to no more than your uninformed opinion without reasoning or evidence to back them up. That is not the way to proceed in philosophical discussions, and that, my friend, is what you could learn here, had you the discipline

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:That is because your posts amount to no more than your uninformed opinion without reasoning or evidence to back them up.

All great philosophers have uninformed opinions with nothing backing them up but their intellect. Only the hoi polloi have informed opinions.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:That is because your posts amount to no more than your uninformed opinion without reasoning or evidence to back them up.

All great philosophers have uninformed opinions with nothing backing them up but their intellect. Only the hoi polloi have informed opinions.

Sheer unadulterated nonsense, show me one great philsopher that produced a finished work without reasoning to back up their view

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:That is because your posts amount to no more than your uninformed opinion without reasoning or evidence to back them up.

All great philosophers have uninformed opinions with nothing backing them up but their intellect. Only the hoi polloi have informed opinions.

Sheer unadulterated nonsense, show me one great philsopher that produced a finished work without reasoning to back up their view

all the best, rantal

All theories have reasoning.

rantal wrote:Now you have contradicted yourself

all the best, rantal

Why don't you quit talking in circles and comment on the subject of this thread???

rantal wrote:I am teaching you that there is more to philosophy than just spouting unsupported and uninformed opinion Bob

all the best, rantal

My friend, I don't think you're in the position to be teaching anybody anything.