1,523
edits
Changes
→Another definition of liberal -2
:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).
:::::If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.
:::::I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)