RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive27

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Boutros Boutros-Ghali[edit]

Chris Waddle. Flannan Isle (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you hate Handball?[edit]

West Bank land deals[edit]

I can't see behind the paywall, but from the subtitle it seems that only the acquisitions by one certain firm are meant. --Sophophobe (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot it was behind a paywall. I will try to look for an alt source.--Owlman (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Now from the new source, it is indeed apparent that the investigation concerned only 15 recent acquisitions by one single firm. I will change this in the link text. --Sophophobe (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair...[edit]

...sexual frustration is indeed a major motivator in terrorism. Terrorists and MRA's overlap very heavily in their worldviews, and the vast majority of the whole terrorism thing is that you have a bunch of young men who have trouble fitting in and finding wives. The granddaddy of Islamic Terrorism (tm), Qutb, spent some time in the US. His writings about this time were exactly the things you'd expect to hear from a whiny red-piller; whaaaa all the women are whores. This is usually code for "I couldn't get laid". CorruptUser (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While I do think some of the stuff about hijabs being "radical adjacent" or whatever is nonsense, it seems like not everything he had to say was bullshit. One of the uncomfortable facts of history is that some young men have always wanted to go to war partially to have their choice of women to rape. Many of these rural young men who have grown up fundamentalist are chomping at the bit to erase every tiny bit of feminism that has been introduced in their society, among other western influences. The idea of having unlimited access to sex slaves is, in my mind, undoubtedly a draw to extremist factions. The problem is that it's almost impossible to study this. Terrorists aren't known for filling out surveys, unfortunately the best insight we can get is from anecdotal evidence of people who have actually been in these organizations, or close enough to study them first hand. Hentropy (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

State firearms[edit]

According to Wikipedia, there are seven states with "state firearms", including the newly be-Barretted Tennessee.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about Tennessee. .50 cal sniper rifles are anti-materiel. What are you hunting with that thing, M1 Abrams?!
EDIT: Forget to sig...CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The gun is widely used by the military. No one said a "state gun" has to be useful to civilians. It's certainly the most iconic gun that can be attributed to Tennessee, and is used by militaries around the world. While the gun can be purchased by civilians, it's very expensive ($9,000 or so depending on mods) and most ranges will not like you shooting it off there. I can understand arguments that we shouldn't glorify guns or whatever, but I don't think the presence of state guns or no state guns are going to affect anything even a little. Hentropy (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I don't have a problem with state guns, but the .50 cal seems somewhat odd. Most of the state guns are 'frontier' guns that helped carve out the state while the .50 cal just so happened to be made from a guy who is native to the state. I think the bigger story is that they are legal to buy which surprises many people at least outside the US.--Owlman (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) there is something inherently ridiculous about a 'state firearm' as there is about a 'state plant' or a 'state animal' and so on. Sure you need some symbols, like a flag or such like, as an easy identifier, but there comes a point where it just causes confusion. I imagine there is someone on wikipedia right now relishing the task of adding article 'list of state guns', and commenting on the apt choices. At least they are not smoking meth, i guess. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well as long as there still is no official state pathogen of Alabama... Pizzameister (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Montgomery, AL has THE worst STD rate in the country (thank you abstinence only), I nominate Chlamydia. StickySock (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Good post! Pizzameister (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
How about using that one: {{goodpost}}--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Good post! Pizzameister (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Iran elections[edit]

That news link on the Iran Elections, though indisputably good news, might be a bit premature. So far, we only have the official results for Tehran which is hardly representative of the whole country (the opposite is likely closer to the truth). (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be cautious in our optimism for another reason: Even the "moderates" or "reformers" are still the equivalent of the Republican Party circa 2012 in terms of religious fanaticism and jingoism... I like the fact that the Mullahs got a slap to the face, but it was a very soft slap. At least compared to what went on during the Arab Spring... Pizzameister (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it has less to do with these guys specifically and more to do with the overall trend. I'm not an Iran expert, but there's little doubt for me now that the Iran deal and reformist policies in general is becoming increasingly popular, which might (hopefully) snowball into more pro-western attitudes and a rejection of the theocratic ultraconservatives in the long run, if not immediately. Hentropy (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
You're such a sockpuppet, Pizzameister. Such. A. Sock. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's hope the people of Iran turn more pro-western. But unfortunately within the current system, it is hard to see Iran becoming open liberal and pluralistic... Pizzameister (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Honduras & Zelaya[edit]

The article is a perfect example of slant and lying from omission in order to support a certain view. The article does say that "Zelaya was not perfect". Well no, he wasn't. He tried to take over the media, undermine the legislature, encouraging extreme left-wing populism, sectarianism, and totalitarianism. He was basically Huge Chavez lite, and I don't think supporting LBGT rights (which in Central America, supporting their rights means "letting them live unharmed") is enough to say he was a great guy who should have stayed in power. The article then goes on to claim that the current government is a thousand times worse, blaming them for killing an environmental activist with no evidence, and then tarring Hillary Clinton with the same brush with even less evidence. The Nation would not have cared about Honduras or Caceras had Hillary Clinton not written about it in her book, THAT is the idiocy of American politics that the article most astutely points out. Hentropy (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Honduras Clinton backed?[edit]

Isn't that just grasping at straws to associate Clinton with stuff you dislike? If you look at the governments in the region, they are all different degrees and types of bullshit. One of those countries has a literal clown for a president and another is governed basically by a mustache (or his wife)... Pizzameister (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

is there a country in the region that hasnt been fucked over by the US?AMassiveGay (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was grasping for straws. The US has a long and petty history of not recognizing countries it deems illegitimate. Since she helped prop up that regime. I think the Intercept story that I posted about Hillary's possible Secretary of Treasury was grasping at straws more than this story.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Obama officially and openly spoke against the deposing of Zelaya (who would by now be out of office regardless) and was pretty much bound to do nothing. Had he intervened the same arguments of evil interventionism would have been raised and so doing nothing was probably the best option. And once new elections were held (which they were) there is nothing left but to recognize the result if it is fair. There are currently several openly left wing governments in the region and some of them are dogged by accusations of voter fraud. Still, the US has not deposed them. Yes the past was horrible in that regard, but how exactly is Reagan or Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt the fault of Obama or Clinton? Pizzameister (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientology tax exemption revoked[edit]

Other news sources don't have anything about this, and the home page of the source contains dodgy material as well. (Donald Trump Tweets Image Of His Penis – WARNING: Graphic Content... Obama Signs Executive Order: Appoints Rashad Hussain As New Supreme Court Justice). Much as I'd like it to be true, this may be a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee, you think? It's a fake website with a domain name intended to look like ABC News's website. --Ymir (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, people still mistake parody sites as real news? Recreational Vehicle (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, considering how crazy some of the real news is, it's hardly surprising. (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's error "correction"[edit]

What a terrible, half-assed apology. She didn't misspeak, she was just plain wrong. What could she have possibly meant to say other than what she did say? That's not a slip of the tongue, it's a blatant falsehood and she really seemed to mean it. It's also SO completely WRONG it might be funny, if she wasn't erasing thousands of dead LGBT people in the process. Then again, she never was very comfortable with the homos, if Bill's comments are anything to go by: http://www.queerty.com/bill-clinton-cautioned-that-hillarys-discomfort-around-gay-issues-would-hurt-her-2000-senate-bid-20150924 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was a mistake how poorly educated in American history and politics would you have to be to say that with a straight face. This a man who called the AIDS epidemic a 'moral issue' and who helped bring the Christian Right to relevance.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 16:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Well you have to give her credit where credit is due, few Republicans would have apologized and admitted they're wrong. Someone like Ted Cruz would have just stuck to their guns. She is one of the few Goldwater Republicans left out there and we should really not make it too hard on that dying species. Pizzameister (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hillary's never been a real friend of gay people, Back in the 1990s she was promoting Momism of the worst kind, with pearl-clutching rhetoric about how the scourge of marijuana might lead young people into sexual activity. It's not at all surprising that she was very slow to come on board with gay marriage. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm really not fond of this rhetoric. It took my mom about 7 years to come to terms with me being gay. I saw her and talked to her frequently during that time. She witnessed my struggle and met my boyfriend. I'm still not sure she's 100% ok with it. Why is that acceptable for my mother, but not Hillary. Why is it that she has to be A OK with the gay without any difficulty? She's far from alone in her difficulty and I don't see that as a problem so much. The 90s were a very different time and a very different social climate. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but it just seems like everyone holds that against her so hard. Views change. AyzmoCheers 15:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
That may well be. On the other hand, you didn't elect her to be your mother, either. Here, we have a choice, and I am unwilling to embrace a candidate who's proven herself willing to embrace all sorts of right-wing ideas if her focus groups suggest that there are votes for her that way. During the first Clinton administration, the Democratic Party bought into all sorts of right-wing nonsense on cultural and freedom issues in pursuit of the votes of Bubbas and soccer moms. I consider that an unforgivable betrayal. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Merrick Garland[edit]

Would any of our US correspondents care to enlighten we UKers on who he is and is conservative or liberal [1] Oldusgitus (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

He's considered moderate, but he's been appointed by democratic presidents and clerked for a liberal justice whom he liked (instead of frothing rage), so he's likely considered a dirty liberal by current conservatives. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ty . So little to no chance of this getting through easily. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that was proven when Obama floated a conservative choice at first and the GOP stated there was no way anyone was getting nominated sourcing "rules" which changed every day that don't exist (and didn't apply if they did). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It apparently took 18 months for him to be approved by Congress when Bill Clinton appointed him to the DC circuit federal appeals court[2] so I wouldn't be holding my breath. Annquin (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Obama should not nominate someone to appease the Republicans. On the contrary, he should openly say: Look. Reject my first choice and my next choice will be even more to the left. Until he nominates Bernie Sanders. Or himself. Or Elizabeth Warren. Pizzameister (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
or he can nominate someone that will be acceptable to a majority. A compromise. Like a grown up. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
One side offering a compromise and the other screaming "no no no" will end with the no no no side getting (almost) everything it wants. Just look at the fate of health care. The "public option" already was a compromise position. And they couldn't even get that passed. Just threaten the GOP senators in swing districts up in 2016 with everything you got. And if they don't budge, well let them lose reelection. The Democratic party has always had the problem of not having the balls to stand for its supposed convictions Pizzameister (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I wish he had nominated himself. That would have been hilarious. Nominating a moderate is all about making the replicants look bad (I mean worse). Read-Write (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I know you are a Brit, but have you been paying any attention to US politics under Obama because the Repubs have been obstructing literally everything he has done since he was elected; that was the plan Mitch McConnell came up with when Obama was originally elected. The Repubs have appointed ultra-conservative judges for decades now and Obama putting a moderate conservative on the court tells the country that conservative thinking is right. Sorry, that you have taken Very Serious People talking points like "adult conversation", "bipartisanship", and "compromise" because that is what Obama has been doing the whole time and he continually has to rely on Dems to pass any legislation. A good deal maker holds fast to their principles and slowly compromises, they don't already compromise and offer something low before they even negotiate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 02:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
what i see is all sides politicking. Thats how you get trump. Well done. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You are honestly going to blame "both sides" for Trump. The Repubs have run the Southern Strategy for years and the Dems and Repubs have both declared frivolous wars, deregulated the economy, and cut the welfare state. Obama himself offered to cut Social Security. The idea that Obama or any other Dem created Trump because they didn't compromise is a complete and utter lunacy. What created Trump is the distrust Americans have with every American institution, wage stagnation, and income inequality. Btw, what kind of politicking have the Dems been doing?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there was an African American leader at the height of the Lynching epidemic and Jim Crow who advocated compromise and moderation (though to be fair he privately and secretly aided efforts to legally challenge Jim Crow in court). His name was Booker T. Washington and a small group of "radicals" (black and white) that challenged him for movement in the civil rights movement went on to found the NAACP. Pizzameister (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And Booker T. Washington's failure to reform the South led to further disillusionment and a more powerful right wing.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 01:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
W.E.B. Du Bois accomplished a whole lot more than Booker T. Washington. Moderation accommodation and compromise may have their place, but now is not the time for compromise with the GOP. Pizzameister (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
and what was achieved? Laws were changed but attitudes remained. The US is as racist as it has ever been, black people are being murdered by police, the country ie divided aw ever it was. Attitudes have are hardened as the opposition is dehumansed and demonised. The all or nothing approach is the enemy of real change and progress. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And what did moderation give to African Americans? During Reconstruction African Americans weren't given reparations which deprieved them of their stolen weslth and property; the Supreme Court deprieved them of equal opportunity and equal protection which led to Jim Crow; the tolerance for the KKK's and Red Shirt's terrorism led to a chilling effect in these communities. Only after the radical decision to amend the Constitution to protect voting rights regardless of race did the black codes end.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thats all that ended though wasnt it. Cultural, economic, institutional racism remained and this cannot be dealt with a hard assed no compromise attitude. It hardens opposition. It reinforces their beliefs. Its viewer not as a fight for rights but as an assault on their way of life. You cannot have failed to notice how everything is framed as a war? War on drugs, war on terror, culture war? No one wants to lose a war. No one wants to give an inch. You must win and completely crush the opposition. Only time lessens the fervour, and when everything is a war, the time needed is greater. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
But only through laws can we achieve change. If NC loses to the ACLU then other states will not pass LGBT discrimination laws because they will lose; if we allow someone who is against police reform and campaign finance reform to be a judge on the highest court then we lose our ability to fight these wrongs. Look all the damage the Robert's court has done: they have given corporations religious rights, open the flood gates to campaign finance, and restricted voting rights and affirmative action.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
'only through laws can we achieve change' — this is false. The racism still endemic in fhe US proves this. It certainly important but it not the only factor. Certainly how a particular law comes to pass is a factor on how much change it can affect on culture and attitudes. It also worth noting that not all issues are as pressing as segregation was and do not warrant the zealotry that is brought to bare. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
and i am not advocating doing nothing nor not righting a cause you would consider just. It just that it is important to never lose sight of the humanity of your opponents even when their actions maybe vile. The goal is to change minds not to crush them beneath your feet. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Well if you want to end class war, culture war, etc you need laws otherwise grassrotts will continue to fight each other forever. We are talking about segregation because that was the main topic, but the same rules apply to fighting for a minimum wage, paid overtime, women's rights, etc. Radicalism has always been necessary when the status quo refuses to change; if we always concede that "it's not time yet, but eventually we will get there" we will have changed nothing. You can't make perfect people because everyone is naturally greedy, but you can hold back the tyranny of the majority. So when we talk about giving the Republicans the Supreme Court we are saying that liberals are wrong when they think the system is unjust.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
you can still be radical and not view your opponents as scum. You cannot hope to affect any mind of change if you do not look at examine the reasons why people oppose you. If you see all opposition as ignorance and bigotry akin to KKK, why would they even listen to you? When i see people here and elsewhere talk of republicans, the language used and tactics suggested (suggesting a nomination specifically to piss of republicans, which spurred my initial comment) it looks a lot less about rights and all about fucking over those filthy repugs. If i were a republican, i'd double down in the face of all that. Let me ask you this - how often have do you refer to republican voters as people as opposed to the enemy? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
if i were a moderate i would be repelled by such behaviour. I am repelled by such behaviour. If your tactics are push away people who would be your allies, how effective can they be long term? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Well I didn't advocate nominating someone just to piss off Republicans and I haven't referred to them as the enemy since my grandfather is still a Repub, but a more moderate one on social issues (e.g. Pro choice, but against affirmative action). I may find certain politicians of their's to be vile, but I don't hate them. I actually see the Tea Party's insurgency as one that was spurred by the party abandoning the white working class who have helped them kill unions and lower taxes; that is a betrayal to the base even if those goals are self harming in my opinion. I tend to see solidarity with libertarians, paleoconservatives, and even an-caps when it comes to civil liberties, corporate welfare, war, and freedom. When I was younger I considered myself a Repub who supported Iraq and John McCain in 2008 because my whole family did, but after seeing the damage the war did to one of my family members I began to hate war and the crash pushed me away from fiscal conservatism. So I will reiterate that Obama's SCOTUS choice is a betrayal to those who voted for him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 19:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
obama was always going to disappoint. What people expected, the change he was expected to affect always more fantasy than reality. The nobel prize says it all. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A case in point - immigration. Working class people, be they black, white, hispanic, polka dot are finding Jobs, housing, benefits are hard to come by. Immigration illegal or otherwise is seen unwelcome competition for these scarce resources. Instead of addressing these fears, working class folk who have them are characterised as ignorant racists. Who are they going to vote for? Democrats who are likening them, and particularly white working class but not solely, to kkk; or vote trump who says he will tackle immigration? We can say trump has no chance against the dems in an election, but i wouldnt put money on it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So because Democrats and Republicans didn't do this singular violent bigoted option that Trump has extolled they aren't addressing these fears? I question this ideal that only by doing this one course of action can people have their fears diminished, in a world of many other options, and I question one person speaking for millions without some sort of backup. This seems like a huge baffling wild overgeneralization and strawmanning. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
so tell me how are these fears being addressed? Is an anmnesty addressing those fears? Nor was i saying it was the whole story but an example about the point i was making about demonizing your opponents. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
and my wild over generalization is no less baffling than portraying an large group of people as simply bigots. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Their fears are bigoted, but I wouldn't call them bigots outright. They fear that their children will not have jobs and with the death of the welfare state there is very little resources left for the next generation. That is what Trump represents, "America First". He has rejected the Christian Right unlike Cruz and he has rejected the neocons and neolibs unlike Rubio and Kasich.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 20:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
i am not saying trump is correct, but he was created by the left as much as the right. i have seen with my own eyes too many otherwise good people lapse into racism and support for far right parties because mainstream parties did not take their concerns seriously. This is a failure of the mainstream and is frankly depresing. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
that said, is it bigoted to be concerned about illegal immigration if it means you have trouble finding work and wages are lowered because of the it. I do find that most people are pro immigration seem to be the least likely to be effected by it. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with your Trump created by the left point. Trump was created almost entirely by the right-wing establishment. People wanting gah rights, legal weed, abortion, and no wars didn't cause Trump. Politicians that were conspicuously vague, lying, conniving little bastards caused Trump. Lahi g blame on the left is a bad interpretation that is less than useful. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Belgium bombings[edit]

Probably best not to provide a body count until all victims are accounted for AMassiveGay (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Testing for puff[edit]

Why are drs testing for drugs anyway? Is this a US thing or is it done everywhere? How does this effect issues of consent? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to know if the patient is taking heroin or other opioid drugs so you can correctly calibrate the painkiller dosage -- you want to give them enough to stop the pain, without giving them so much you kill them. Since patients aren't usually forthcoming about this, urine testing is routinely performed. -- (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Alcohol as well, given how many medications react with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What they said. It's basic chemistry: you don't add a new substance to a mixture without first identifying as many substances already in the mixture as you can, as to minimize the risk of unintended and potentially dangerous reactions. The article just has a very bad title. From what I understand, doctors are still supposed to test patients for THC, but testing positive for it should no longer disqualify the patient from as many prescription medications as it did before. It looks like they're trying to convince people to stop treating marijuana as more dangerous than it actually is. (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
How is consent affected? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how consent is relevant in this case (it doesn't even appear in the article). AFAIK, consent usually comes into play when it comes to drug testing by a gov't representative (usually a police officer at a traffic stop) or by an employer. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
as far as i know in the uk, you need consent to test for anything. For example, when i worked at kings college hospital, it was considered a big deal if someone was tested for hiv if fhey did not expressly consent to that testing. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
there was even debate as to whether we could tell a pat8ent they had tested positive when they hadnt consented to be tested. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands thing[edit]

Given how much it was downvoted, anybody got any insight on this? Pizzameister (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I figured it was British users expressing their opposition to Argentinian claims of ownership, given the war.-- Forerunner (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There's no chance that the UK or anyone else will give a fuck about it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
indeed. i doubt the falklanders give much of shit about either AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it creates new problems. Continental shelves are used to determine rights to resources exploitation (mostly minerals and fisheries). As long as the Falklands were isolated, the British could simply deny any Argentinian pretension to those resources, but now they have an internationally recognized paper giving them some standing. And of course, Argentina is not according the same standing to the UK, as it sees them as an occupying force. Sovereignty is determined by the inhabitants, and,well... (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It surprises me that a UN commission would rule this way. I mean what about CeutaWikipedia near Morocco, which is owned by Spain, or GibraltarWikipedia near Spain, which is owned by the UK.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 01:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
About time that Falkland War II, the sequel Thatcher was waiting for, finally got started. jrussellwrites (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You do know that the Falkland's War was started by the Argentinian Junta, arguably because they thought Britain was weak and it would an easy win, don't you? Pizzameister (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
i believe jrussel's comment is what is known as a joke AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, we Austrians don't have humor... Pizzameister (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't blame you; sarcasm is hard to transmit and interpret through text. jrussellwrites (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding Double Vote bars?[edit]

Been editing the News page. How do I avoid Double Vote bars? I just copied text and edited as it seemed to make sense. — Unsigned, by: Lord Garland / talk / contribs 17:08, 1 April 2016

Fixed it for you. You'd accidentally added a "<vote poll=World11504></vote>" at the end of your post. (see difference here.) There's no need to click the "2.Select the text you just entered, click here" link if you manually put in a poll tag.
Also, please don't forget to sign posts with four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of talk page posts. Cheers! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone is going to have to do a Page on the BDS movement. Problem is if I can't edit a news page what odds do I have at doing a whole page myself? I'm a full time Computer programmer but this confuses me. — Unsigned, by: Lord Garland / talk / contribs

Crimean Tatars[edit]

Since the Foreign Policy link is paywalled I will explain how the Russians are subjugating the Tatars. Firstly, the Russians and Tatars haven't had good relations since Stalin ethnically cleansed them in Crimea and filled the peninsula with Russians who weren't to keen on the Tatars return. Secondly, the Putin's government has promised the Tatars that their language will be one of the three official languages of Crimea (the other two being Ukrainian and Russian), but they have reduced hours of Crimean Tatar instruction in schools, refused to give channels like ATRWikipedia, which speak Crimean Tatar, broadcasting licenses, and they have regularly raided Tatar households and religious institutions in search of ‘extremist’ material. Thirdly, Crimean Tatars have been subjected to politically motivated court trials and the Russians have threatened to ban the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar PeopleWikipedia as a "extremist group" for helping the Ukrainian government cut off electricity, water, and food to Crimea; an example of the politically motivated attacks on the Tatars is that the Mejlis leader, Mustafa DzhemilevWikipedia who spent 15 years in a Soviet prison for advocating for his peoples return to their homeland, has been banned from entering the peninsula. Fourthly, the Russians have arbitrarily arrested 8 Tatar and non-Tatar protesters and have held them indefinitely. Lastly, the Russian authorities have made no attempt to investigate hate crimes and kidnappings committed against the Tatars.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I think the Russian government likely views the Crimean Tatars as suspicious, as they are likely to be targeted by NATO/EU/USA to be spies and rebels. The Russian government would like to ensure a basically ethnically homogenous Crimea, and honestly, who can blame them? Look at Chechnya and Dagestan. Look at the conflicts there, all due to ethnic and religious differences. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Easy I can blame them. Due process of the law is everything to a free and open soceity.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Switzerland isn't ethnically homogeneous and last time I checked, they were doing fine... Pizzameister (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Well there is quite a lot of xenophobia there, but I tend to see that in all of Europe these days.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The idea that ethnic homogeneity breeds peace whereas diversity breeds violence is preposterous. Pizzameister (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Switzerland is... a weird case study. I certainly wouldn't use it to prove anything regarding the integrity of nation-states. Swiss federalism is very unique and worked because of its relative seclusion and centrality in Europe. It has been advocated for in Somalia; which is already split into several federal states; but Somaliland, Puntland, Somalia actual, and al-Shabaab have not gotten along well: there has been conflict between all of them. I don't disagree with due process at all, and any denial of rights is wrong. I'm also not saying ethnic homogeneity tends to breed peace; I'm simply pointing out that a vast majority of non-USA-instigated conflict over the past centuries were due to ethnic differences in states. Take WWI, where the Serbs were angry at not having all of their people in one state. WWII: we have the Germans wanting the Sudetenland and other Germanic areas. Yugoslavia was a war entirely the result of ethnic tensions inside of an otherwise well-functioning state. Ethnic differences have led to conflict in Iraq (Sunni/Shia/Kurd), Syria (Alawite/Sunni/Kurd), Turkey (Turk/Kurd), Caucasus (Chechens, Azeris, Georgians, Armenians). When a huge portion of modern conflicts are the direct result of tensions between ethnic groups who don't want to live under the same government, it would be preposterous not to seek solutions based on ethnic redistribution and apportionment.
Since we're talking about Ukraine, let me propose my solution: simple linguistic and ethnic partition. Here is what Ukraine looks like now de jure. Here is its ethnic breakdown. Here is what I think it ought to look like. Russia gets the ethnic Russian areas in the east as well as Crimea and a good many ports, while Ukraine retains most ethnic Ukrainian areas as well as its sea access. This would pacify Russia's quest for border security as well as Ukraine's desire for territorial integrity and defense. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Somalia is inhabited by just about 100% ethnic Somalis. It has ethnic divisions the same way there are divisions between North Dakotans and South Dakotans. The same can be said about Rwanda (read about the history of the very terms Hutu, Tutsi and Twa, it's very very enlightening). Ethnic homogeneity is neither desirable nor a good predictor for political success of nation states or any type of state. Pizzameister (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You're wrong on Somalia. The term 'Somali' as a utopian label that ignores the uglier reality on the ground: that country is divided into many ethnic groups who don't like each other, the main reason the country hasn't unified since decolonization. Don't believe me? Here's a map of ethnic groups in Somalia and a map of Somali factions in 1992. Note the division between ethnicities. Even a modern map reveals that al-Shabaab's main haven after years of war is a clan minority area. Your final opinion just isn't borne out by the facts you presented. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem intent on arguing that ethnic groups are unable to live together and therefore they need to have their own homogeneous state. Now I can agree with you that many of the countries in Africa and the Middle East have been artificially created with ethnic history ignored, but to advocate tearing them apart along ethnic boundaries would be disastrous. These ethnic groups will either live on resource rich land or they won't and this will cause their governments to be prone to war in order to steal or protect these resources; they will proceed to enforce their homogeneity through discrimination and ethnic cleansing. To me, the solution is to try federalization since this gives these ethnic groups autonomy over their piece of land within a country. Russia, for example, is the largest federalized nation in the world and they have avoided collapse from ethnic conflict for its entire existence.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 19:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
and a liberal amount of bombing and mass deportations AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I never said it solves all ethnic conflicts, but Stalin's attempt to make Russia homogeneous led to vastly more death. The same can be said of Germany's, Japan's, or China's attempt to make a homogeneous state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There are clans in Somalia, sure. But they are not the same as ethnic differences in other African countries. You see, even in the US, you can divide up "white" into several sub-ethnicities, but almost everybody does not care about any except Latino/non-Latino within the "white" population. More than 90% of Somalis speak the same language and belong to the same (sub-)branch of Islam. If language and religion define ethnic identity, how do you argue that Somalia is anything but ethnically homogeneous? Yes clan and family matter in Somali society (If you meet a Somali the first question often is who the father grandfather and so forth as to ascertain to which clan they belong). And yes, Siad Barre intentionally fanned clan violence, but you cannot, I repeat cannot explain the violence in Somalia by ethnicity. Even neighboring countries like Kenya and Ethiopia (incidentally containing Somali minorities) have mostly managed to avoid open ethnic strive or when it happened kept it within reasonable bounds (a bit of post election violence here and there, no biggie). There are countless examples of "rainbow nations" living long and prosper lives in peace and there are countless examples of homogeneous nations going down in brutal violence (less than 1% of El Salvador is indigenous and there are no notable recent immigrant groups, yet they had one of the most brutal civil wars in Latin America). Even genocides can happen in ethnically homogeneous countries. Look no further than Rwanda. Saying "tribalism" is one of the problems "in Africa" is both incredibly stupid (the very term "tribalism" shows a lot of ignorance) and just plain wrong in way more cases than not. Pizzameister (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Or the Cambodian genocide?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 17:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Pizzameister, I think you misunderstand my position on a key point. I wasn't directly stating that ethnic homogeneity breeds peace. I simply said that a lot of times, in fact an uncomfortable amount of times, ethnic/class/whatever divisions between peoples are a major source of intrastate conflict. I've already provided examples. I believe that group/clan homogeneity is desirable in a certain number of select cases where the warring parties in question have amply demonstrated that they are unable to live together in peace. This is the case in Somalia, as well as many other nations outside of the West. Taking ethnicity and group identity into account is a vital component finding solutions to intrastate conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. I disagree with your point "Ethnic homogeneity is neither desirable nor a good predictor for political success of nation states or any type of state". Modern Europe exists as a direct result of hundreds of years of nationalistic struggle and rebordering until the parties involved were generally satisfied with the end result. Today's European ethnic borders are almost all drawn on ethno-linguistic lines, with the exceptions of Spain and Switzerland. Ethnic homogeneity, and the struggle for it, is why the West's borders are where they are today. This is after many centuries of war. Africa has only been introduced to the concept of the nation-state relatively recently, and due to the stupid European colonialists, borders were drawn in all the wrong places, resulting in ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, DRC, and Mali. Take Mali as just another example. The border was drawn the was it was solely for France's administrative convenience. Just recently, the Tuaregs and lighter-skinned people wanted to separate from the black Malians in the south. They launched a (for the time being) successful military campaign and liberated all of their claimed territory. Why should not the ethnically different areas be allowed to separate? The problem with your view of statehood is that it essentially ignores people's will and is instead based on some other factor(s) that you have not yet specified. I think that's a big problem. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Europe is definetly not drawn on ethno-linguistic lines. The Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and even the English can tell you that in the UK; Breton, Occitan, Germans in France can tell you the same; the Frisians, Sorbs, Bavarians, and Danes will also disagree with you in Germany; the Nordic countries also have Finns and Danes in Sweden, Swedes in Finland, and the Faroese, citizens in Bornholm, and Yupik in Greenland in Denmark who all want to leave; every ethnic group in Spain and the post-Yugoslav republics will scream out you on the mere suggestion. Hell, the European Free AllianceWikipedia was created for this very reason.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 03:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The Scots and Welsh both have separate states with a reasonable degree of autonomy within Britain. The Germans in France is an interesting story that I don't have time for but suffice it to say they view themselves as 'French'. Look, we can quibble about minor facts all day, but that doesn't destroy the meat of my argument. I would assume by your lack of disagreement that you don't find much to disagree with in my main point. Is this the case? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that colonialism created instability among these artificially created nation states. I disagree that homogeneous nation states as an end goal were federalism can be attained, but that doesn't always work.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Every nation state is an artificial creation. Well into the second half of the 20th century (with some individualsWikipedia until today) there was resentment regarding the post war borders of Europe and the expulsions that went with them. There about five dozen ethnic groups that form more or less coherent minorities within or across states in Europe and by far not all of them have anything even approaching their own state. And the pre-colonial empires in Africa (which by the way were often the suppliers of slaves to the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and later British French and Americans) were not drawn along ethnic lines either. Yes the whole Muslim vs. Christian thing has recently exploded in West Africa (Mali being just one example, Nigeria is another one). But exactly what would be changed if those countries were split and spliced? Probably North Nigeria would start an invasion of South Nigeria to get the oil fields and a major port. In Sudan partition did exactly zilch to solve the problems there. And it may just have entrenched the problems even more. And what about South Africa? Do you advocate for every ethnic group (the country has 11 official languages) to get its own state? What about the white South Africans? What about the big "melting pot" cities? Divisions along ethnic lines are a symptom of crisis, not the reason for it. When Yugoslavia was prosperous under Tito nobody gave a fuck about Orthodox Serbs or Catholic Croats or Muslims. Once shit hit the fan everybody was at each other's throat. The same can be said of Germany. Bavaria went to war against Northern Germany in 1866. By 1871 they were one state. Pizzameister (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
a one size fits all approach here is nonsense. There are so many reasons why some states work with a multitude of ethnicity and why some fall apart. Yugoslavia is not germany is not india is not rwanda is not the US is not the UK. Different pressures, different conditions on their founding, different traditions and histories. You can only look at each individually you cannot say 'this works here so it will work there' if conditions are vastly different. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Well of course you have to look at ethnic history, but federalization works. Secession is always contentiousness and needs serious justification; new ethnic tension can rise at any moment for any reason. Btw when I say "artificial" I mean they were drawn by outsiders w/o examining ethnic history and not created through war and diplomacy. The best example is the partition of India were Jammu/Kashmir is locked in a border dispute, Pakistan has 4 main ethnic groups dominated by the Pashtun with the Balochi wanting to secede, and a log list of ethnic groups wanted to secede in India.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Pizzameister. This is a rough idea of what I want Africa to look like. Not all of the borders have been finished, as it's an ongoing project. I've given the north Nigerian Muslims their own state, as well as some land from Niger that is ethnically theirs. Key non-Arab areas in Darfur have been ceded to Chad, alleviating ethnic tensions there, while Arab portions of South Sudan have been ceded to North and non-Arab areas in the North given to the South. Somaliland gets independence, and Somalia proper gets ethnic Somali land in Ethiopia and Kenya, alleviating religious tensions in those countries as well as strengthening Somalia's economy through more land and resources. The Central African Republic gets a complete makeover, losing Muslims areas in the north and gaining ethnically similar portions of the Congo. Minor ethnic adjustments have also been made in Cameroon, Burkina Faso, and Mali. The Tuaregs have their own state, economically bolstered by export wealth from 2 uranium mines at Arlit and Akouta. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I see your division of nigeria at the stroke of pen sets the scene for an all new biafran war, and doubtless dozens of others. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
So the Sahrawis and Igbos just fuck off and Puntland gives up part of its territory?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The Sahrawis are gonna be adminstered by Morocco for now. Most of them already are. I may change that though. Puntland gives up part of its territory to whom? Somalia, who it is already part of? It will maintain federal states like it has now. Puntland is far less independent than Somaliland, and culturally it was never separate, unlike Somaliland.
I'm just loving this criticism of the Nigerian split. It's split now! Look at Boko Haram at its height! The north hates the south, and they are culturally separate. Why would there be another major war? There is already massive suffering for the north. Partition would at least allow the 2 sides to live apart. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, 'doubtless dozens' of wars? Really? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Puntland and Somaliland have had a land dispute for some time now. Even though the north and south hate each other partition wouldn't guarantee that they don't go to war again.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
the biafran conflict was sparked by the oils rich parts of nigeria attempting to break away. These are mostly in the south. Splitting the country with your, i dunno, 'neo imperialist paternalism'?, with those oil fields in the south, is the north going to accept that? Is any state going to accept their land split because some outsider has reduced all problems to one of ethnicity? Is any ethinic group going the loss of land and resources to another ethnic grouping if you can indeed reduce it so much? As for boko haram, they are a terrorist group in the same vein as isis. I dont see them letting up if they given their own land. None of the issues these countries faced can be fixed so easily. It so much more complex. Real life is not a game of civilization. It is all moot though as we are not likey to be able test your mapAMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There was another country where the North hated the South and they went to a brutal civil war over it, the ramifications of which are still visible to this day... I forgot which it was, but facial hair played a huge role in the civil war... Every singly national border is a product of chance and artificial at least to a degree. This becomes especially painfully obvious when cities are divided, as is the case in Cyprus to this very day. If there is one "organic unit" in human civilization, it is cities. And even they are sometimes divided by international borders. Yes, the borders of most African countries are severely fucked up. But do you really think some bloke at their fifty dollar laptop is going to come up with a better map of Africa? The only people who have any right to draw new national borders are the people who have to live with them. In the grand scheme of things it matters little to me or you (assuming you don't reside in Africa) where the border between Namibia and Somalia runs (see what I did there?), but to the people living there, it does a great deal. Also in your map it is sometimes hard to understand which country is supposed to be which. And do you really think Gambia is a particularly useful country to have left after a great makeover? I know an attempt at uniting Senegal and Gambia already failed historically, but you seem to have little regard for the history of Africa in the last 50 or so years... Pizzameister (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

  1. Your point about the Civil War, I don't see how it is a point. I'm quite glad the north won, and I think the country is better off for having the war than not having it. A rare opinion, I know. But it's a score that had to be settled, and if there was no war, the social effects would have just continued to brew and fester under the surface, screwing up the country even more.
  2. Yes, cities are divided. Nicosia, Jerusalem, and now Aleppo. There's a reason for this. Almost always there are 2 groups that fervently hate each other and are incapable of peaceful coexistence. In the case of Jerusalem, the city would be better off divided (in the context of an independent Palestine).
  3. This is not a laptop, and it cost well over $2,000 when factoring in all parts. I actually gave great consideration to the border placement based on ethnicity and religion, unlike the European colonialists at the Berlin Conference. My plan, on my #50 laptop, would actually be better for Africa than what the Europeans drew.
  4. "The only people who have any right to draw new national borders are the people who have to live with them." I disagree. History has shown exactly the opposite, with people of totally unrelated ethnicity and origin dictating borders by force. Most people participating in your hypothetical conference would be various African subnationalists that would lobby only for their own land, resulting in no one agreeing with each other's borders. Outside mediation and choosing would actually be the better outcome, seeing as the continent is doing a rather bad job of it right now when left to their own devices.
  5. "And do you really think Gambia is a particularly useful country to have left after a great makeover?" Yes. Gambia (the government) doesn't like Senegal. In fact, both peoples were uninterested in a union that was actually foisted on it by Europe. In a perfect world, we would all love each other and there would be no war, but that's not going to happen. Instead, borders must be drawn realizing the political will of all the societies. Austria doesn't want to be part of Germany. Transnistrians aren't fans of Romanians. Gambians just don't like Senegalese.
  6. "you seem to have little regard for the history of Africa in the last 50 or so years..." Well compared to the Middle East, yes. That's why I've focused on the Middle East mostly. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Africa is not a jigsaw puzzle. your fantasy africa does not address issues of poor governance and corruption which plagues africa, it takes no account of distribution of resources, it takes no account of the myriad of differing issues and crisis on the ground and takes absolutely no regard for the hopes and wishes of peoples of africa, all in favour for an incredibly simplistic reduction of everything down to ethnicity and religion. As pizzameiter says, whom i am loathe to agree with, it is for africa to decide how africa manages itself. The fact thät powerful outside onterests have imposed borders and governments onto to many african countries is not a justification to do so now. The many problems that äfrica fæces are a direct result of outside interests, be they slavery, colonialism, imperialism. The answer is not more of this. Pretty much all the conflicts in the world today are the result of outside interests interferring in affairs of others. Since the wave of african states gaining independence post ww2, few, if any have been left to manage their affairs. Cold war politics has seen us fuel wars, topple governments, and prop up corrupt dictators. There is no one on that continent who won't chafe under more intrusion into their live and affairs. As modern states these countries are new, only 60 -70 years old. They will never grow if we do not let them. They will make mistäkes. We in the west in most cases have had 100s of year to get to where we are, often at the expense of afica, and we still havent got any kind of utopia. All we can do in the west is allow them to learn from them. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The only thing I regret about the US Civil War is that the South was allowed to again subjugate African Americans. It should have been crushed and the plantations broken up and given to Freedmen. And while I do think non-interventionism can be a good principle, it would be naive to think that all problems of Africa are the result of outside intervention. Just like Europe managed to tear itself to shreds twice within thirty years without any outside help, Africans have had a knack of making the lives of other Africans miserable without much outside interference. In fact, Somalia only got worse once the world turned its back. Rwanda could have done with some interventionism in 1994 (arguably France intervened on the side of the genocidal maniacs, not the side of the victims). Yes the principle of inviolable borders is one of many things that hamper Africa, the other thing is that too many people think of Africa as poor war torn and desperate, when it also has prosperity peace and progress in many places. Africa needs one thing above all others and with the current narrative it won't get it: Investors. And your proposal for a "scramble for Africa redrawn" conference is probably the same well intentioned harm that gave us missionaries and colonialism. All borders are artificial. I recently had a look at the Guatemala-Mexico border. Please don't tell me you think it is a "natural" border. Sometimes this hurts, sometimes this helps. But you cannot go around dictating borders because the Africans "Don't know what's good for them"... Pizzameister (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Well that is definitely not the only thing I regret about the American Civil War, but that is unrelated. I think we need to realize that we can't have all the answers in front of us so we shouldn't be so impassioned about our stances on other's affairs. I think the AU has done a great job turning Africa around though I wish there would have been harsher punishment on Sudan and Burundi to name some recent examples; the AU has helped ethnic minorities gain self determination with the SADR being the only example where the international community hasn't followed the AU's example and recognized said country.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 00:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What else do you regret about the Civil War? Braking the planter aristocracy and ending slavery was the whole point of the war, and 600 000 dead would have been a low price if it had been successful... Pizzameister (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well besides all the death I wish Lincoln wouldn't have suspended habeas corpus, close down newspapers, or arrested people over politics. Mainly, though I regret the death toll though the war was inevitable; even the founders knew that when they allowed slavery to persist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly 600 000 dead is a small price to pay. And I doubt there could have been any outcome with a much lower outcome. The war had to last a certain time for the North to realize it was about slavery and the South had to be defeated decisively. Lincoln's death could have been a good thing overall had his Veep been literally anybody else. Lincoln was a superb wartime leader (despite his flaws which you mentioned) but what we can glean about his Reconstruction plans, he would have been far too lenient. Had the Radical Republicans gotten in immediately after the war ended, they might have pushed through an ambitious program of planter expropriation and giving the freedmen reparations for slavery. The Civil War was fought for the right reasons and if anything too late, but its aftermath was seriously mishandled because too many Northerners valued compromise with traitors higher than civil rights for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. I am opposed to the death penalty on principle, but it would have done more good than harm had more traitors and more proponents and culprits of lynching been hanged in that era... Pizzameister (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
'a small price to pay'? Especially when its other folk paying it. It was a fucking catastrophe regardless of the outcome or the 'rightness' of the conflict AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Some wars are inevitable at some point. The Second World War became inevitable the moment Germany turned fascist. The American Civil War was also inevitable. I don't know when it became inevitable, but by 1860 every act that would have prevented the war from happening then and there would have only made it much much worse. And yes, 600 000 dead are a comparatively small price to pay for an inevitable war to end the continued rape and murder and abuse of human dignity systematically perpetrated against millions of Americans. Slavery killed more people than the Civil War. And its main outcome - the end of slavery - should have come about much much earlier. You tell me how it could have been done without war. Had the North not done the right thing, sooner or later there would have been a slave rebellion. The South would not have given up its hold over the slaves voluntarily. And a slave rebellion on a large scale - regardless of its outcome - would have been an absolute blood bath. The slaves needed freeing and the planter aristocracy needed crushing. Unfortunately the North was too weak or to indecisive to do both with the full necessary force... Pizzameister (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
doesnt mean you can right of the deaths of hundreds of people in such a cavalier fashion as 'a small price to pay'. It being unavoidable does not lessen the tragedy. Neither does the fact that slavery was just as awful. It is not a numbers game AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I call 600 000 dead a small price to pay if the alternative would have been millions of dead people. Just like I would call an alternative World War II that only kills a million or two people better than what actually happened in our real world. Yes, every death is a tragedy, but those who died in the American Civil War died for a much, much worthier cause (or in the case of the CSA fighting against said worthy cause) than those that died in the Taiping Rebellion (which by the way killed a lot more people) Pizzameister (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it odd that you seem to believe their deaths were noble instead of being the some kind of collective punishment for the Founder's tolerance for slavery. Remember there were slave revolts in the North and racism has been prevalent throughout the North since the founding of this country. I find it impossible to say that the South was not fighting for its own moral cause since the North was essentially threatening their way of life; this has always been the rallying cry of rebellion that the Southern nationalists have unified under.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to like racists in the North (in fact, Frederick Douglass made a point of stating most abolitionists were racist) to agree they eveentually fought on the right side (mostly, anyway). Just like you don't have to like Stalin to acknowledge that the USSR was on the right side in World War II (if only after having been dragged there kicking and screaming). And I am sorry, a way of life that is based on the murder, rape, forced labor and numerous other horrendous crimes against a huge subset of the population deserves to be crushed. And please don't tell me the average grunt in the CSA army fought for slavery. Most of them fought "because the Northerners are here". One of the good aspects of the Civil War outside of the abolition of slavery is that it made the federal government an efficient force for the first time. Unfortunately most of the 19th century Presidents proceeded to squander those gains. Imagine what would have happened, had the court been packed by anti-slavery pro-civil-rights pro-union federal government activists in the 1870s... Pizzameister (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the culture of the South was right, but that they had justification to fight back. The North also thought in the same way the South did on various issues, but I will avoid judging them at this time. I also didn't say that the Rebel soldier fought for the institution of slavery, but had fought for southern culture which was based on said institution. I wish SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled against the civil right's cases, but they did because the Us (and most of the West) has always hesistated on ensuring positive rights. I also find it hard to justify Stalin's involvement against the Nazis as justifiable since he would later annex Eastern Europe and had already committed various genocides, ethnic cleansings, and democides; he agreed to be an ally to Nazi Germany and would have assisted them had Hitler not invaded.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)