It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
Fun fact: There's an actual "Spanish Inquisition Museum".
http://limaeasy.com/culture-guide/museums-lima/museum-of-inquisition-and-congress
avatar
Klumpen0815: Surprise!
avatar
Nerevar.220: Sigh. Not funny.

I'm just sad and tired of it. The last thing we needed is separatism playing victim after all the bs they've been doing.
Sorry for the late reply i heard and read much about it, thats why i am a little late , just noticied this post today, but after seeing the image linked to the url by Klumpen0815
it looks like he/she is right cause all those images, videos, that is impossible to all fake that.

Anyone who had some history classes at school might/should know about the 'sad' and ' naughty' things the spain have done in the past ( and many other countries but its about spain now), yuo can't simply ignore that and don't 'shoot' the messenger we were kids back then and this is what us been told by our grownup teachers back then so it must be true.

avatar
Klumpen0815: Fun fact: There's an actual "Spanish Inquisition Museum".
http://limaeasy.com/culture-guide/museums-lima/museum-of-inquisition-and-congress
In Spain or in other small 'isolated' parts?

Anyway EU condoned it all more or less according to their replies , unles thye deleted all the posts and twitters and wrote better ones, so thats why most countries 'remove' their local forces by spending less money on army and police, EU can then make a plan to make a EU police force and army, loyal and in service of EU (council)so they have no connections with the common people.
A few Dutch politcians already know this and mentioned it, but noone believes it.
Post edited October 07, 2017 by gamesfreak64
avatar
htown1980: I've never found it difficult to determine when I am acting morally or immorally.
Then maybe you should question yourself more often. We have two popular sayings:
1) Only fools are always sure of themselves.
2) The way to hell is littered with good intentions.

avatar
htown1980: No sex before marriage is a religious concept. I think you will find that most philosophers, even religious ones, would say that religion plays no role in determining morality.
I don't see how this distinction is relevant. I could give a thousand other examples. What makes you a hero in one part of the world makes you a pariah in the other. And what was exemplary hundred years ago is unacceptable today.

avatar
htown1980: If no one had challenged the apartheid in South Africa, nothing would have changed. If no one had challenged segregation in the USA, nothing would have changed.

I would say that these are two very good examples where refusing to break an immoral law, merely because it is the law, without giving any consideration to whether the law is moral or otherwise does more harm than good.
Both issues were finally solved by adjusting the law. One could argue that illegal actions were necessary to create attention and press the matter and that the lives it took were ultimately a small price to pay. Without being an expert on those specific parts of history I would neither agree nor disagree. However one should consider that the situation was dire and the means of legal protest very limited, whereas the catalonian independence is literally a first world problem that can and should be solved in a civilized way.
avatar
Klumpen0815: Fun fact: There's an actual "Spanish Inquisition Museum".
http://limaeasy.com/culture-guide/museums-lima/museum-of-inquisition-and-congress
I have been there once, it is worth seeing whether someone is visiting Lima.
There is also a thematically-related museum in Petersburg (where I live), called "The Inquisition" (a link to google-translated site).
avatar
htown1980: I've never found it difficult to determine when I am acting morally or immorally.
avatar
hmcpretender: Then maybe you should question yourself more often. We have two popular sayings:
1) Only fools are always sure of themselves.
2) The way to hell is littered with good intentions.
1. I didn't say I was always sure of myself, just that when it comes to when something is moral or immoral, its not really that difficult to know which is which. I might not always do the moral thing, but if I am not doing it, I usually know.
2. I have no difficulty questioning myself.
3. I think you misunderstand my point. The second saying you refer to speaks of taking immoral actions with good intentions. I don't speak of intentions. I speak only of actions.

avatar
htown1980: No sex before marriage is a religious concept. I think you will find that most philosophers, even religious ones, would say that religion plays no role in determining morality.
avatar
hmcpretender: I don't see how this distinction is relevant. I could give a thousand other examples. What makes you a hero in one part of the world makes you a pariah in the other. And what was exemplary hundred years ago is unacceptable today.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You don't understand there is a distinction between religion and morality? Its a fairly fundamental concept. I'm not sure which part of it you have difficulty with?

avatar
htown1980: If no one had challenged the apartheid in South Africa, nothing would have changed. If no one had challenged segregation in the USA, nothing would have changed.

I would say that these are two very good examples where refusing to break an immoral law, merely because it is the law, without giving any consideration to whether the law is moral or otherwise does more harm than good.
avatar
hmcpretender: Both issues were finally solved by adjusting the law. One could argue that illegal actions were necessary to create attention and press the matter and that the lives it took were ultimately a small price to pay. Without being an expert on those specific parts of history I would neither agree nor disagree. However one should consider that the situation was dire and the means of legal protest very limited, whereas the catalonian independence is literally a first world problem that can and should be solved in a civilized way.
One *could* argue that illegal actions were necessary? COULD? If you genuinely think that one COULD only argue that those illegal actions were necessary, you need to do some more research. There are plenty of scholars who have discussed the effect of civil disobedience in those situations.

I agree Catalonia isn't a major issue. My comment wasn't about Catalonia it was about your comment that "Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it."

That's simply incorrect. I appreciate that you obviously know very little about the history of civil disobedience in South Africa and the USA, but that doesn't make your comment any less incorrect.
Spain should negotiate with Catalonia: Either offer increased authority for the higher tax rate, or lower taxes while making Catalonia more in line with Spain's policies. Trying to have everything is greedy and stupid on the part of both sides. Either part ways, or forge a decent compromise.

While I personally hope that Catalonia and Spain would compromise, it is important that the people of Catalonia ultimately have control of their destiny, as all people should.
Post edited October 09, 2017 by Sabin_Stargem
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Spain should negotiate with Catalonia: Either offer increased authority for the higher tax rate, or lower taxes while making Catalonia more in line with Spain's policies. Trying to have everything is greedy and stupid on the part of both sides. Either part ways, or forge a decent compromise.

While I personally hope that Catalonia and Spain would compromise, it is important that the people of Catalonia ultimately have control of their destiny, as all people should.
Do you really think having different regions of the same country paying different tax rates is a good idea? If anything it would further fuel fragmentation of the country as the highest taxed regions would think of themselves as oppressed and second-class citizens.
avatar
hmcpretender: Then maybe you should question yourself more often. We have two popular sayings:
1) Only fools are always sure of themselves.
2) The way to hell is littered with good intentions.
If you are philosophically ignorant, you can be absolutely certain that you're a fool.

I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

Aristotle


avatar
hmcpretender: I don't see how this distinction is relevant. I could give a thousand other examples. What makes you a hero in one part of the world makes you a pariah in the other. And what was exemplary hundred years ago is unacceptable today.
Some parts of the world value objectivity, and some don't; where would you prefer to live?
avatar
Crosmando: Do you really think having different regions of the same country paying different tax rates is a good idea? If anything it would further fuel fragmentation of the country as the highest taxed regions would think of themselves as oppressed and second-class citizens.
That is why I said that Catalonia should receive increased authority if they are to be taxed more highly. It is a give and take situation.

In any case, prosperous regions should subsidize the development of the nation, so that in the long run the nation as a whole would become able to carry and improve member states. This create friendlier trading partners, allows a greater pool of educated workers to draw upon, ensures military potence, and can assist in mitigating various disasters.

It is not only ethical, but also practical to ensure that you have neighbors that are willing and able to help you.
avatar
htown1980: 1. I didn't say I was always sure of myself, just that when it comes to when something is moral or immoral, its not really that difficult to know which is which. I might not always do the moral thing, but if I am not doing it, I usually know.
2. I have no difficulty questioning myself.
Sorry, I don't buy this. You say you're questioning yourself but when it comes to one of the most subjective and most debated thing in the world, like whats right and wrong you alwyas know the answer? Have you ever thought about even simple ethic dilemmas like the Trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)?

avatar
htown1980: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You don't understand there is a distinction between religion and morality? Its a fairly fundamental concept. I'm not sure which part of it you have difficulty with?
Religion are early morale systems covered up with some mysticism. While philosophers since have made progress to rationalize morality, religions have still the largest influence on the morale believes of the vast majority of people on earth (sadly - in my opinion).

avatar
htown1980: One *could* argue that illegal actions were necessary? COULD? If you genuinely think that one COULD only argue that those illegal actions were necessary, you need to do some more research. There are plenty of scholars who have discussed the effect of civil disobedience in those situations.

I agree Catalonia isn't a major issue. My comment wasn't about Catalonia it was about your comment that "Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it."

That's simply incorrect. I appreciate that you obviously know very little about the history of civil disobedience in South Africa and the USA, but that doesn't make your comment any less incorrect.
As long as we can't alter history and see what would have happend, we can only make assumptions. Also weighting the costs of civil unrest vs social progress gained is a delicate matter at best. Just think of all that revolutions that ultimately went very very wrong...

However I think I should specify my statement a little more: Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it (as long as you live in a free,constitutional and democratic country that offers you legal means to pursuit your goals). - Sorry I assumed that was clear given the topic. At least you didn't came up with Nazis...

avatar
richlind33: Some parts of the world value objectivity, and some don't; where would you prefer to live?
If you happen to find a part of the world where objectivity is valued, tell me where it is. I'll pack my bags...
Post edited October 11, 2017 by hmcpretender
avatar
htown1980: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You don't understand there is a distinction between religion and morality? Its a fairly fundamental concept. I'm not sure which part of it you have difficulty with?
avatar
hmcpretender: Religion are early morale systems covered up with some mysticism. While philosophers since have made progress to rationalize morality, religions have still the largest influence on the morale believes of the vast majority of people on earth (sadly - in my opinion).
Religion eschews rationality in favor of belief, whereas ethics is predicated on rationality, so they are not only different, they are fundamentally incompatible.

avatar
richlind33: Some parts of the world value objectivity, and some don't; where would you prefer to live?
avatar
hmcpretender: If you happen to find a part of the world where objectivity is valued, tell me where it is. I'll pack my bags...
If you feel that way, why do you think law is preferable to ethics?
Post edited October 11, 2017 by richlind33
avatar
htown1980: 1. I didn't say I was always sure of myself, just that when it comes to when something is moral or immoral, its not really that difficult to know which is which. I might not always do the moral thing, but if I am not doing it, I usually know.
2. I have no difficulty questioning myself.
avatar
hmcpretender: Sorry, I don't buy this. You say you're questioning yourself but when it comes to one of the most subjective and most debated thing in the world, like whats right and wrong you alwyas know the answer? Have you ever thought about even simple ethic dilemmas like the Trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)?
Don't apologise, I don't care whether you buy it or not. You appreciate one can question oneself, and then come to a conclusion, right? And then one can continue to question oneself and affirm that conclusion, right? Questioning oneself isn't the same as vacillating.

avatar
htown1980: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You don't understand there is a distinction between religion and morality? Its a fairly fundamental concept. I'm not sure which part of it you have difficulty with?
avatar
hmcpretender: Religion are early morale systems covered up with some mysticism. While philosophers since have made progress to rationalize morality, religions have still the largest influence on the morale believes of the vast majority of people on earth (sadly - in my opinion).
See richlind33 response. Religion may have been used as a pretence to justify bad moral decisions, but it is not a proper basis for determining morality. Again, you understand that right?

avatar
htown1980: One *could* argue that illegal actions were necessary? COULD? If you genuinely think that one COULD only argue that those illegal actions were necessary, you need to do some more research. There are plenty of scholars who have discussed the effect of civil disobedience in those situations.

I agree Catalonia isn't a major issue. My comment wasn't about Catalonia it was about your comment that "Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it."

That's simply incorrect. I appreciate that you obviously know very little about the history of civil disobedience in South Africa and the USA, but that doesn't make your comment any less incorrect.
avatar
hmcpretender: As long as we can't alter history and see what would have happend, we can only make assumptions. Also weighting the costs of civil unrest vs social progress gained is a delicate matter at best. Just think of all that revolutions that ultimately went very very wrong...

However I think I should specify my statement a little more: Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it (as long as you live in a free,constitutional and democratic country that offers you legal means to pursuit your goals). - Sorry I assumed that was clear given the topic. At least you didn't came up with Nazis...
"Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it"

OK, so lets give a super cliched and basic example. Rosa Parks. 1 December 1955, she refuses to give up her seat on the bus to a white person. That was against the law.

You think by not giving up her seat, an action which played a significant role in moving forward the civil rights movement in America, did more harm than good. That's what you really think?