Here the obvious response seems to me to be to ask what you were hoping for instead. Like, what conceivable deal would satisfy you that Iran isn't keeping some secrets still? 24/7 body cameras on every major political figure in the country? If the position is "we should just invade" then, fine, I guess, but I'm having a hard time understanding what a "better deal" would look like when the worry is "maybe Iran has secret nuclear facilities that we don't even know about and which we can't deduce the existence of by scrutinizing everything that is available to us".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Here the obvious response seems to me to be to ask what you were hoping for instead. Like, what conceivable deal would satisfy you that Iran isn't keeping some secrets still? 24/7 body cameras on every major political figure in the country? If the position is "we should just invade" then, fine, I guess, but I'm having a hard time understanding what a "better deal" would look like when the worry is "maybe Iran has secret nuclear facilities that we don't even know about and which we can't deduce the existence of by scrutinizing everything that is available to us".
You can't just make a new nuclear research site. You need uranium and centrifuges.
We know about all the places Iran can get uranium. Uranium's a pretty rare mineral, and it's, you know, radioactive, which is easy to detect, so it's safe to say there are no secret uranium mines in Iran. (Not to mention the fact that the United States is the country that originally surveyed and built those uranium mines, so we pretty much know everything there is to know about Iran's uranium deposits.) The IAEA will be monitoring these mines and recording exactly how much uranium is removed and exactly where it goes along the supply chain to Iran's nuclear power plants. If any of it goes missing along the way, it will be easy to detect.
We also know about Iran's centrifuges. Iran is turning over the vast majority of its centrifuges, and the IAEA has inspection authority over every centrifuge factory in Iran. We also have inspection and veto authority over all nuclear-related or even potentially nuclear-related deals with Iran, so Iran can't buy anything that even could be used for nuclear research unless the IAEA approves it.
So it will be incredibly hard for Iran to set up a secret nuclear site. Is it possible they could hide a few centrifuges, find some uranium, and do some enrichment? Yeah, it's possible. But at worst it would be at a very very slow pace, and that's the point -- to heavily reduce and slow down Iran's nuclear program. We'd also probably find it at some point, because, again, uranium is radioactive, and then all the sanctions would come back. So is it actually worth it for Iran to do? Probably not.
I think Iran is absolutely trustworthy and forthcoming about their nuclear ambitions. They've made no secret about them -- they want to build a nuclear weapon. We can trust that they want to do that, and that they will try to do it if it's reasonably possible to do. But there's no way to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons short of permanently occupying them, which we aren't going to do. So the best we can hope for is a deal that makes it really really hard to build nuclear weapons and really really expensive if we find out they're doing it, and then let cost-benefit analysis do the work of actually stopping them from building the weapon. That's what this deal does.
Coriolanus
Banned
Even assuming that they aren't (and my goodness, they most certainly would have plenty of reason not to be, given the kinda shit other countries pulled on them), how was the previous status quo, where no one quite knew what in blazes they were up to, any more favourable than the current, with foreign actors constantly going into the country to inspect stuff?
Hi guys, a long time lurker (for real!), and always loved following Poligaf in particular, hah hah. In addition to following politics, I've admittedly got a lot to lose, depending on who gets elected next year which is why I'm introducing myself here as well! Just want to say Trump is an entertaining clown, but a total (if classy) racist too.I'll give him this though, very charismatic, and who knows what'll happen if he doesn't flame out anytime soon!
Welcome. You will love it here. Here is a few things you must know:
1. Diablos and PhoenixDark are know for "Diablosing". Diablosing is when they make exaggerated troll like statements overblowing a particular situation.
ex: "Hillary is imploding over this email scandal"
2. We are known in the OT as HillaryGaf.
3. Aaron Strife is a very optimistic fellow.
4. If we are not panicking over poll numbers, we are panicking over something else.
5. I am missing a ton of other things lol.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Yeah, but this is CNN we're talking about. What if Wolf Blitzer's hologram machine malfunctions and starts putting up pictures of various adorable animals with Donald Trump's hair and a "who wore it better" caption? What if Don Lemon leaps onstage and demands to know where he's hiding his black hold engine he used to take down that Malaysian airlines flight?
Well, just following the circus like the rest of you. It's certainly makes 2011 look... Tame in comparison already. It's too bad it's come to this point though. It's just funny that Trump is the current frontrunner despite his other positions, yet the other candidates are potentially more harmful to the country as a whole than he is.
Manmademan
Member
Officerrob
Banned
Wasn't there something like 35k RSVP's? CNN kept blowing it up like it was going to be the biggest event so far this cycle
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
State seems to have a pretty big progressive block, but they're young and if you don't really energize them, they won't do shit.
Any state that elects Ron Johnson then Baldwin then possibly Feingold is just kind of crazy.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
We are?
Retromelon
Member
I wish i knew this before the 2014 midterm elections
Can I be on team PracticalSandersGaf?
Hah hah, got all of that. I'll say this, I'll join the meltdowns if next year doesn't go so great, lol. Anyway, I'm honestly shocked that Walker is seemingly falling apart already. Not a wise investment by the Kochs so far.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Let me try to go about this a different way because I think you're misinterpreting the analogy in a fundamental way. Thomson created the analogy to serve as a defense of abortion that would work even under the condition that a fetus was a person with a right to life; it was predicated on conceptions of bodily autonomy, not self defense. The point I'm making is that the inherent differences in form (both moral and otherwise) severely cut against the purpose of using the analogy in the first place. Analogies work by saying "X is like Y", they don't work if "X is not like Y". Thomson kind of encapsulates my whole problem with one of her other analogies:
This gets to my point which is that we end up having to create these alternative versions of pregnancy that are less analogies then they are merely rewordings of reality. And that defeats the purpose of what the analogy was supposed to do in the first place, unless the actual problem is entrenched psychological opposition that might be defeated with a variation in presentation of information. It's not actually capturing or circumventing issues that aren't better handled by direct engagement.
When you say that:
I think you have it entirely backwards with regards to this analogy (in part because of the self-defense confusion). It's not part of why they support rape exemptions, it is why. They like this analogy precisely because it works as a rape exemption and not as a generalized defense. You feel like the burden is on them but as you mentioned, it's very easy for them to reverse the scales by changing the default scenario:
I don't think you'd be as charitable in defending the inherent flaws of an abortion analogy which made us the direct cause of the violinist's injury. Which is why I think your last comments were slightly off-point:
This isn't really addressing the issue they're bringing up or even an issue that I brought up in the context of this analogy. It's dodging the issue of causation: what happens if we are responsible for the violinist's injury? That's not a minor or trivial element of the analogy.
But the larger point I'm making is that this kind of analogical discussion inherently gets disjointed from the actual issues and that it is easier and more informative to simply discuss the issues directly. After all, regardless of our answer to the violinist question, do we really think that's indicative of how we 'should' answer the abortion question; that the issues of morality, causation, reliance, responsibility, etc are close enough in form to merit overlap? I think it's an intellectual distraction, albeit an interesting one.
Retromelon
Member
Read more bernie threads ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Poodlestrike
Banned
PracticalSandersGaf is just a dogwhistle for HillaryGAF. Either you're fully feeling the bern, or you're a corporate stooge/ neocon/ republican in sheep's clothing/ enemy of the people. Etc.
Retromelon
Member
Poodlestrike knows
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No thanks.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
So it looks like they got half the crowd they wanted at best.
Tarkus
Member
And you believe that Iran will actually comply to IAEA rules.
What if I've just got a mild case of HeartBern and I know the Republicans will repeal Obamacare
Also, I think you mean it's a HillDawgWhistle
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Pretty much any deal would require Iran complying with the rules. Unless we're going to occupy them forces to prevent that.
It's a trust but verify kind of situation.
Coriolanus
Banned
"Believe" doesn't factor when international actors are concerned.
For example, Saddam believed that if he complied with UN inspectors, he wouldn't get invaded. How well that worked out for him.
Retromelon
Member
Sound the wolfowitz alarm!What if I've just got a mild case of HeartBern and I know the Republicans will repeal Obamacare
You gonna respond to Pigeon's well thought out post or are these charades just going to continue?
Fenderputty
Banned
Firstly, yes.
Secondly, why are you so afraid of Iran? What would them acquiring a nuke do?
For real? lol
Retromelon
Member
It would march the jews to the oven door
Looks like 30,000 in the end turned out for Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/index.html
Of the establishment candidates, I don't think it will be just Jeb aiming for Trump at the next debate. At the very least, Walker seems to be flailing. I expect him to take as many, if not more, ill advised shots at Trump than Jeb will. I don't think Kasich can afford to ignore Trump either given how little support he hasmaybe not take direct shots, but if he's staking out his position as the moderate alternative (which, maybe is not a terrible idea when everyone else is running to the right... though it probably is), he's naturally opposed to Trump anyways. Should make for good television.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Iran with a nuke will probably do as much or less damage to Israel/U.S. as NK does to SK/U.S.
And that's not much.
Actually, NK is protected by China more than Iran is protected by anyone and Iran has way more sane people, so Iran is far less of an existential threat to Israel than NK is to SK.
Are you a cousin of HylianTomHi guys, a long time lurker (for real!), and always loved following Poligaf in particular, hah hah. In addition to following politics, I've admittedly got a lot to lose, depending on who gets elected next year which is why I'm introducing myself here as well! Just want to say Trump is an entertaining clown, but a total (if classy) racist too.
RastaMentality
Banned
For anyone actually voting in the R primary (like me): who are you voting for?
Aside from sharing Hylian in our names and presumably at least enjoying Zelda, nope! Maybe...
I am voting in the Republican primary for Trump in the MI primaries. Far more entertaining to vote for the "lolz" in the GOP, Hillary will have locked up the nomination by the time the election hits my state anyway. It Trump isn't in it by then then whoever else is the most unelectable. Probably Cruz.
I talked about this in my post a little, but I'll make it explicit.
The Iran deal does not rely on trust. In general, international diplomacy is not about trust, but about consequences.
If Iran allows IAEA inspections and tries to carry on a nuclear program of any reasonable capability, we'll know immediately, and the sanctions will come back.
If Iran stops allowing IAEA inspections or attempts to limit or control them in any way, we'll know immediately, and the sanctions will come back.
If Iran allows IAEA inspections and tries to carry on a very small, very secret nuclear program, it'll seriously increase the amount of time they need to create a bomb (which, again, is the goal), and we'll probably find out eventually, and the sanctions will come back.
No trust is required for any of these steps. This is all verification.
In all three cases, having created and kept to our part of the deal, we'll isolate Iran and make it much easier for us to get the cooperation of international allies including Russia, China, and possibly other Islamic states. By contrast, if we allow this deal to collapse or deliberately undermine it, we'll be isolated, and we'll lose not just Russia and China but very likely western Europe as well.
Once again: the only way for us to stop Iran from creating a nuclear weapon that won't rely on constant inspections and verification is for us to permanently occupy them. Even if we were to occupy them, forcibly dismantle their nuclear program and institute inspection protocols of our own, as soon as our troops left Iran they'd repudiate the inspections and kick our people out and we'd have to go right back in.
We can't, and won't, permanently occupy Iran. We have no capability to permanently occupy a country in today's military era, we have no will for a prolonged war and occupation, and there's no way the international community would allow us to do it.
So there's no way for us to stop Iran from getting a nuke. The best we can do is set up a system where they promise not to build one and we verify that they don't.
I actually haven't glanced at the big Bernie rally thread until today. Yeesh. I get the feeling that liking Bernie isn't good enough.
Welcome, HylianHistorian! This cycle is going to be FUN!
I'm officially not participating in the Democratic primary this time around since my state has a unique open primary system (I'm messing with the GOP's side this time, just for fun), but if I were voting in the primary.. it'd likely be Hillary. Bernie's great though. I save my deepest contempt for the take-my-ball-home/"there's no difference" crowd.. they might as well be Scalia ballwashers, as far as I'm concerned
(2000 left a bit of a mark.)
Hah hah, always a shame to see people give up like that. Gradual progress should always be in people's minds. It's the reality of politics and our world. And hell yeah, it's going to be fun. If Trump is the nominee next year, I'll have an excuse to continue doing my impression of him.
And I'll bet it's the biggest, classiest, most luxurious Donald Trump impression in the world.
For real though, I hope he stays in long enough for me to settle into my new job because I need the material.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's not enough to like Bernie (who I'm probably voting for), you also have to hate Hillary (who I'll have no reservation voting for when she's the nominee). I think that's the most frustrating thing and it reminds me of the bitterness in 2008, only if Obama fans were deluded idealists who supported a candidate who can win neither the primary nor the general election.
Oh well.
I can confirm it is. And I wish you well on your job! Anyway, one of the main reasons I'm into politics is because in 2006, my mom and dad revealed I'm undocumented, so that was a kick in the gut. So I knew I was part of the debate on illegal immigration. Following that and paying attention to the news on the issue, Obama became president, which was such a cool moment, man. I mean wow, I'll never forget that! And so the years continued on and I saw the foolishness of House/Senate republicans as they refused to cooperate with the president along with the rise of the tea party and learning about money in politics and so on and on. Then in June 2012 Obama's executive order (DACA) came, and I seized the opportunity. I got work authorization in 2013 after a long wait, and got it again several days ago after renewing it. Obama gave me a small but fighting chance, and I'll be forever grateful to him for that, and consequently Democrats too. I just hope that one day I'll be applying for something far more permanent! Even if republicans hate me and the rest of us, it only makes me work harder and to want to help out and treat other people no matter who they are well. Consequently, I'll be going to college soon, and I thank Obama for giving me some hope. The only reason I haven't gone yet is to provide some financial security to my family, as my dad was deported (urgh so sensitive I know). That is my story lol, and how it relates to me being here and my interest in politics. Just an example of how policy can effect people directly, and I hope I showed you guys that!
Admittedly I'm not as polished as you guys are, but I'll do my best to contribute here, even of some question me being here, hahah. I do try to stay well informed with multiple sources too, so I'm not a complete ignoramus. I can take the #bern, I mean heat! That's why I ain't even mad if Trump talks crap, even if I'm slightly worried about him becoming a nominee then POTUS.
I'm still pretty torn between Bush and Trump for my pick. The big question I have right now.. we don't know where his unfavorables with GOP voters will settle.
If the contest comes down to Bush & Trump, a huge question becomes: "whom do the voters hate less?"
Which would be delightful.
If the contest comes down to Bush & Trump, a huge question becomes: "whom do the voters hate less?"
Which would be delightful.
RastaMentality
Banned
Voting Trump here to help him out with the modern Southern Strategy.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
These people live in a different world
And I can't believe how quickly Trump has destroyed the Republican parties chances with Latinos and other Immigrant/Minorities.
And I can't believe how quickly Trump has destroyed the Republican parties chances with Latinos and other Immigrant/Minorities.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay, since America transformed into Mad Max world while I wasn't looking (according to Burns), when is a good time to raid a city for gasoline?
Yup, I'm a murderer alright. Of stupid myths. :/ Continue to bury your long-term future guys.These people live in a different world
And I can't believe how quickly Trump has destroyed the Republican parties chances with Latinos and other Immigrant/Minorities.
When I was a junior in high school we discovered that the valedictorian of the graduating seniors was undocumented, his parents only told him because of college applications. Dude went to Chuck Schumer who tried to pull some strings for him, to help him get the loans and stuff he needed for school, but sadly he couldn't beat the bureaucracy. Your story kinda reminds me of it, especially the year you found out. It literally turned everyone involved with the school around on the issue almost overnight. So I'm really glad things are going well for you and I can only hope they get better. The immigration system in this country needs a massive overhaul and I hope to god it happens sooner rather than later.
Don't worry too much about that stuff, you should read some of the shit people post early on. Unfortunately politics requires a continuing education that never ends and only becomes more and more obfuscated as time passes. Hey, at least we've got Trump to laugh at.
I'll be starting a raiding party as soon as I finish looting all this copper wire.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Is this what a grown up Republican debate looked like? Must have been nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gYHMwEdvIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gYHMwEdvIk
StopMakingSense
Member
Everything regarding Trump regardless, I love that Time Magazine photo of Trump..
The Gaming Gamer
Member
Wow, what a stark contrast
It's been years, so I thought I might have misremembered, but the argument seems pretty self-defense-laden to me. In the article here Thomson spends time in Section 1 arguing for double effect, more-or-less - it's not murder to unplug the violinist to save your own life. She uses the phrase "right of self-defense". She says "a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death". Later in Section 3 she discusses exactly this responsibility issue I've brought up and again mentions self-defense. Note that I'm using "self-defense" a little more broadly than she does - she's talking about it as protecting one's own life, whereas I mean protecting oneself broadly. But also note that in Section 5 she seems not to think that a right to bodily autonomy is absolute - it would be "morally indecent" to unplug the violinist if being plugged in is no real hardship (if it only lasts an hour and doesn't impact your health at all). What seems to make it possible to decently refuse to grant the use of your body to the violinist is just whether you're defending yourself from serious harm by killing him. She then spends a while walking this back because she thinks it's very weird that "anyone's rights should fade away and disappear as it gets harder and harder to accord them to him," but if we just talk about what people ought to do she's perfectly happy to say that people ought not to exercise their rights when they could make the world a better place by not exercising them and without losing anything significant. This strikes me, and I think even her, as just semantics. She ends Section 5 with this: "nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive." In Section 8 she is explicit that "It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad." She's explicit in a few places that it doesn't really matter if you don't like the distinction she makes between "indecent" and "unjust". This all strikes me as clearly a defense of abortion as an exercise of a right to defend oneself from harm against an innocent person who nevertheless has no right to harm you. Bodily autonomy comes into it because it helps explain why the fetus has no right to the woman's body that could compel the woman to allow the fetus to harm her. But there needs to be harm in order for the woman to "decently" prioritize her bodily autonomy over the fetus' right to life.
Moving on, I think thought experiments can be very useful just because they're not obviously rewordings of reality. Whether they are or not is often what's at issue. And arguing about this helps get at which details are relevant to the moral analysis of real cases. What often happens when you're trying to do "direct engagement" is that someone comes up with a principle - we're talking about abortion and someone says "well a fetus is a person and it's got a right to life, so abortion is wrong because that's killing it". You're basically done talking about abortion in particular at that point; you're only going to get anywhere if you start trying to get at whether that's actually a good principle. And so someone who thinks abortion can be permissible might do what Thomson did (well, first you might take a whack at arguing that a fetus isn't a person, but this is a worthwhile strategy too). From her perspective, yes, she's "rewording reality" (although, again, note that it's not, actually, since she doesn't think the early fetus is a person). The violinist case is capturing the important details of abortion. But this will very often not be obvious to the other person - they'll have a very different intuition about the violinist case. Their principle, however, would commit them to coming to the same conclusion in both cases. And so they see that their principle doesn't work, and they need to at least adjust it so that they can get different results in the two cases (hence the "responsibility" stuff). One hopes that eventually, if every plausible attempt fails, they'll drop their opposition to abortion. I don't know - maybe this is what you mean by "entrenched psychological opposition" - but whatever you want to call it it seems like the way a huge number of moral arguments unfold (most of the rest stalemate at "uh-huh" "nuh-uh").
I don't really understand some of the back half of your post. I'd suggest that lots of pro-lifers don't support rape exemptions just because they have the intuition that permissible abortion is about self-defense; I think clearly lots of them are motivated by a much less intellectualized compassion for rape victims, and clearly lots are motivated the other way by something like a desire to see women punished for having sex. But, sure, people will tend to come up with thought experiments that they think show that their opponents' principles are bad and their principles are good. I don't see that that's a fatal flaw, if we're arguing somewhere above the level of political slogans.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked