Conflict surrounding the Prime Directive as the philosophical bone of contention is too muddy and weak to be sustainable. It is a poor point of contention when most Federation captains we have "met" skirt it with alarming regularity. It would result in boring conflict, arguments over semantics, and mutual navel gazing that would produce awkward ambiguities that would erode the credibility of the Federation.
Great villains make great heroes. In the canon universe the best example remains the Klingon Empire. STO may dilute the Klingon identity but it is the only culture with a long standing presence within canon that has retained sovereignty both physically and culturally. The persistence of this distinctly different culture as the only credible peer to the United Federation of Planets is a testament to it's worth. Introducing a Fed like to have conflict with Feds is like listening to someone talk about how they would like to have sex with a clone of them self.
It isn't much different than how many of us would react to somebody being sentenced to being stoned to death. We as a society have come to the conclusion that it is a horrible action, and choosing not to object would be a silent endorsement of the act.
Guilting... I endorse any nation's right to set and impose their own laws as they see fit... I might not like a particular law, but I understand that it's not my place to try and insist they do otherwise, and I also understand that in a foreign country, I am subject to those laws, wether I agree with them or not, and to claim otherwise is simply entitlement...
First contacts typically end poorly when one side has ulterior motives. If the more powerful party isn't out for conquest or subjugation things can go pretty well. If the Federation doesn't want to dominate a world then it is up to them to choose that path. Temptation will always exist, but it is a mark of character to reject it. If the Federation is as noble as they claim then they have nothing to fear from contact with others.
And what if the other side's motives aren't as noble? Look what happened when Bajor made contact with Cardassia...
It is only guilting because you understand it is wrong. I realize this is going to run counter to the modern self-esteem generations views, but respect is something that has to be earned. If a society, culture, or person engages in horrible acts then it is perfectly acceptable to not respect them. Not all ideas hold equal value and moral relativism is just a cowards excuse for apathy.
As for the Bajor-Cardassia example, I really don't think that is applicable to the Federation's policies. What a facist police state like Cardassia does is obviously going to be different how the Federation behaves. If the Federation has no intention of dominating a world then it simply needs to follow through and not dominate that world, simple as that. Temptation to do wrong isn't a guarantee that wrong will be done.
No, it's guilting, because you were being emotionally manipulative innusing an ultimatum to try and gain agreement for your perspective...
I agree, it is certainly counter to the modern generation's views, and I'm profoundly grateful that is not a generation that I belong to.
Re the second boldened point, BS. No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with. I'm not apathetic, I just appreciate that there are things which I have no right to voice an opinion on, from the premise that my outlook is any better.
For example, the age of consent in Germany is 14. The amount of uptight American scolds who get irate and insist; "That's a child!!!" when discussing the topic, utterly proves the point that they expect everyone else to follow their laws, share their values, and do things the way they do.
I don't think that...
I think that Germany has the right to set its own statutes, and to deal with things in its own way.
I also know that an American or English visitor to Germany who tried to use German law to hook up with a 14 year old, would find themself in very serious trouble, because they would still be bound by the age of consent in their home country of America or England.
I don't live in Germany, I don't visit Germany, I don't have any friends or family in Germany. I have no right to say that how Things are done in Germany is wrong.
Now you're totally entitled to your own opinion on a/the subject; But the instant you start dictating that someone else must agree with you, and start using emotive terms to suggest moral failure to do so, then that is guilting, and intellectual fascism...
Re the second boldened point, BS. No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with. I'm not apathetic, I just appreciate that there are things which I have no right to voice an opinion on, from the premise that my outlook is any better.
Now you're totally entitled to your own opinion on a/the subject; But the instant you start dictating that someone else must agree with you, and start using emotive terms to suggest moral failure to do so, then that is guilting, and intellectual fascism...
... Are you seriously trying to goad me into making a holocaust reference? I'm just going to assume that you are trolling at this point. Have a nice life and god bless your heart.
Re the second boldened point, BS. No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with. I'm not apathetic, I just appreciate that there are things which I have no right to voice an opinion on, from the premise that my outlook is any better.
For example, the age of consent in Germany is 14. The amount of uptight American scolds who get irate and insist; "That's a child!!!" when discussing the topic, utterly proves the point that they expect everyone else to follow their laws, share their values, and do things the way they do.
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc., it's all okay because while it might seem wrong to you, they believe that it's morally right! Who are you to judge? (Plus, if you have no right to judge other people's morals, what business do you have judging "uptight" Americans for judging others according to American values?)
No. There is right and wrong, distinct from an individual's or society's beliefs of what is right or wrong. What is that absolute moral code? Nobody's figured it out yet, and that's why we must look at other societies and judge: to adopt what we find to be good and reject what we find to be bad, according to our own best ability. Be critical, and be self-critical. Seek alternative viewpoints, find out which pieces of the answer they have, and which pieces you can offer them.
Young age of consent is a good example, actually, because you can make reasoned arguments that it should not be so. It's not just an opinion or a tradition, you can sit down and examine it: the risks, the statistics, what you expect to happen, what actually does happen, etc. You can talk about it and reach a logical decision as to whether the law is acceptable or should change. And then you can reevaluate it as you gain new information over time. Now, you have no authority to force a change in that law, but you still can and should judge it.
Christ, now I'm getting flashbacks to the Kobali flame war.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I think it would be tough to create a true rival for the United Federation of Planets within STO. When it came to the actual writing of the missions and STFs, it would be easier to fall back on things already in the game rather than create something brand new from scratch. Adding in just the one twist, no Prime Directive, would not be enough to differentiate a rival from the Federation and Starfleet in the current game setting. Which has had the Federation at war with a succession of enemies.
Also, a true rival would have to score some victories. So far in STO, the Federation has lost some very minor battles but has not yet been defeated in any of the wars it has worked so hard to be a part of.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
Re the second boldened point, BS. No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with. I'm not apathetic, I just appreciate that there are things which I have no right to voice an opinion on, from the premise that my outlook is any better.
Now you're totally entitled to your own opinion on a/the subject; But the instant you start dictating that someone else must agree with you, and start using emotive terms to suggest moral failure to do so, then that is guilting, and intellectual fascism...
... Are you seriously trying to goad me into making a holocaust reference? I'm just going to assume that you are trolling at this point. Have a nice life and god bless your heart.
Are you on drugs?? Why The F*ck would you think I am trying to make you reference the holocaust?? My comments were to do with differences between various countries ages of consent, and American scolds' attitudes towards them! How The TRIBBLE do you somehow get 'holocaust' from that or feel the need to even raise it as a subject?! Is that some bizarre kind of anti-anti-Semitism?? Do you somehow think that any reference to Germany (you know, one of the power-houses of Europe) is somehow an attempt to discuss naziism and its implications??
Ugh, generation-bashing. We can be quite thoughtful and reasonable, you know.
Touched a nerve there? Hey, if the shoe fits... Sorry, but there are enough issues with millenials that go beyond 'generation-bashing' into valid observations. That's not to say that all are like it, but enough to maintain a healthy skepticism...
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc., it's all okay because while it might seem wrong to you, they believe that it's morally right! Who are you to judge? (Plus, if you have no right to judge other people's morals, what business do you have judging "uptight" Americans for judging others according to American values?)
No. There is right and wrong, distinct from an individual's or society's beliefs of what is right or wrong. What is that absolute moral code? Nobody's figured it out yet, and that's why we must look at other societies and judge: to adopt what we find to be good and reject what we find to be bad, according to our own best ability. Be critical, and be self-critical. Seek alternative viewpoints, find out which pieces of the answer they have, and which pieces you can offer them.
Reductio ad absurdum... I'm not even addressing it.
People can have opinions on subjects all they like -- it's when they start trying to enforce said opinion on others that it's an issue... The attitudes and mindsets I'm talking about, are like an anti-Prime Directive: A delusion where someone thinks that everyone else, and everywhere else needs to hold the same ideals as they do... I vew the world in strictly Prime Directive-terms, ie, independent nation, not my, or anyone else's business to try and insist that they do things 'the way we do'...
Absolutely there is 'right and wrong'. But a country's laws which are different to one's home nation's laws, are not automatically 'wrong', just because they are different... That's the difference...
Young age of consent is a good example, actually, because you can make reasoned arguments that it should not be so. It's not just an opinion or a tradition, you can sit down and examine it: the risks, the statistics, what you expect to happen, what actually does happen, etc. You can talk about it and reach a logical decision as to whether the law is acceptable or should change. And then you can reevaluate it as you gain new information over time. Now, you have no authority to force a change in that law, but you still can and should judge it.
Sure, it can be discussed on an intellectual level, with statistics and rationality. But that's not what the fb scolds do when the topic comes up, they just rage against it because it offends their sensibilities and they feel it's wrong... That's not reasoned debate, but impassioned hystrionics.
And yes, absolutely someone can judge it and make a judgement, ie form their own opinion on the subject. But they don't then get to use that opinion as if it is a fact and expect everyone else to bow down to it and treat it as such Just Because They Said It... That's the point I was making...
No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with.
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance. And we definitely shouldn't be upset about those nations in which being TRIBBLE is a capital crime, because who are we to say they're wrong? Child-labor laws in certain Asian nations that essentially wind up with five-year-old indentured servants on factory floors, working with highly-dangerous machines they aren't even trained to operate safely? That's their own ethics, and what right have we to impose our ethics on them?
Absolutist statements are dangerous, Marcus. (That's one of the few absolute statements I feel comfortable making.)
No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with.
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc.,
That is absolutely reductio ad absurdum... It is saying (or at least, this is how I receive it) "We can't judge the laws in Germany (or wherever) so why bother having any laws here in America?? (or wherever)" It's a false equivalency, and not at all what I was saying or meaning.
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance.
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
And we definitely shouldn't be upset about those nations in which being **** is a capital crime, because who are we to say they're wrong? Child-labor laws in certain Asian nations that essentially wind up with five-year-old indentured servants on factory floors, working with highly-dangerous machines they aren't even trained to operate safely?
Same as above, and as you yourself said in your last sentence (white I'm presuming you meant facetiously, but which I mean literally:
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance.
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
...What? The entire purpose of the United Nations is to govern nations, and you accept that fact when you sign the charter and join. Sure, it's not very effective at it lately -- I happen to believe that the Security Council permanent members should never have been given veto powers, because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance.
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
...What? The entire purpose of the United Nations is to govern nations, and you accept that fact when you sign the charter and join. Sure, it's not very effective at it lately -- I happen to believe that the Security Council permanent members should never have been given veto powers, because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
^^ This. The whole point of the United Nations is to Unite the Nations! Anyone who joins is recognising certain inalienable human rights. Now, that doesn't give the UN the right to pressure countries which aren't a member, but South Africa, for example, was a UN member.
because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
Because the alternative is worse. You replace dictatorship with anarchy and nothing is solved except you have traded the predictably barbaric with the chaotically monstrous. Look at what happened in countries where the will of the West was enforced, in Iraq or Libya and now Syria. Or Israel/Palestine or North/South Korea. There's a reason the UN should not be given the power to go and interfere, because their solutions are culturally relative.
But what do you expect from an organisation where the US and Russia can continue their cold war using Iran and Saudi Arabia as puppets to continue it?
You think those people should be able to govern other countries on a whim?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
Because the alternative is worse. You replace dictatorship with anarchy and nothing is solved except you have traded the predictably barbaric with the chaotically monstrous. Look at what happened in countries where the will of the West was enforced, in Iraq or Libya and now Syria. Or Israel/Palestine or North/South Korea. There's a reason the UN should not be given the power to go and interfere, because their solutions are culturally relative.
But what do you expect from an organisation where the US and Russia can continue their cold war using Iran and Saudi Arabia as puppets to continue it?
You think those people should be able to govern other countries on a whim?
I think that's why Starsword explicitly criticised the Security Council's veto powers.
Ugh, generation-bashing. We can be quite thoughtful and reasonable, you know.
Touched a nerve there? Hey, if the shoe fits... Sorry, but there are enough issues with millenials that go beyond 'generation-bashing' into valid observations. That's not to say that all are like it, but enough to maintain a healthy skepticism...
Yeah, it does touch a nerve because you guys bring this up all the time, but isn't consistent with my observations of myself or my peers. Gets real old (pun intended).
But the shoe obviously fits, right? I mean look at all my impassioned hystrionics in these posts!
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc., it's all okay because while it might seem wrong to you, they believe that it's morally right! Who are you to judge? (Plus, if you have no right to judge other people's morals, what business do you have judging "uptight" Americans for judging others according to American values?)
No. There is right and wrong, distinct from an individual's or society's beliefs of what is right or wrong. What is that absolute moral code? Nobody's figured it out yet, and that's why we must look at other societies and judge: to adopt what we find to be good and reject what we find to be bad, according to our own best ability. Be critical, and be self-critical. Seek alternative viewpoints, find out which pieces of the answer they have, and which pieces you can offer them.
Reductio ad absurdum... I'm not even addressing it.
Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum (which is a vaild form of argument). Your argument doesn't make sense according to the value system by which we make decisions. If one cannot judge actions made under a moral code other than our own, then we cannot judge stoning of adulterers. Unless you are also arguing that we should accept stoning of adulterers (which I'm fairly certain you're not), than your argument is false. The statement that you should not judge other moral systems has no exceptions. You did not say we cannot judge trivial or harmless actions made under a moral code other than our own, you said that we cannot judge any actions made under a different moral code.
Young age of consent is a good example, actually, because you can make reasoned arguments that it should not be so. It's not just an opinion or a tradition, you can sit down and examine it: the risks, the statistics, what you expect to happen, what actually does happen, etc. You can talk about it and reach a logical decision as to whether the law is acceptable or should change. And then you can reevaluate it as you gain new information over time. Now, you have no authority to force a change in that law, but you still can and should judge it.
Sure, it can be discussed on an intellectual level, with statistics and rationality. But that's not what the fb scolds do when the topic comes up, they just rage against it because it offends their sensibilities and they feel it's wrong... That's not reasoned debate, but impassioned hystrionics.
And yes, absolutely someone can judge it and make a judgement, ie form their own opinion on the subject. But they don't then get to use that opinion as if it is a fact and expect everyone else to bow down to it and treat it as such Just Because They Said It... That's the point I was making...
There are more people in the world than just "Facebook scolds" (another judgement-laden term, I might add). The fact that some people resort to impassioned hystrionics does not change the fact that there can be legitimate expectations that other groups with a demonstrably inferior moral code should change. We as a society don't just accept that many young women in Africa must undergo ritual genital mutilation, we want the people there to end that practice and use various means (some of which have their own problems) to bring about that end.
So no, you don't get to tell people what to do just because you said it, but if you tell someone something that is right and makes sense, they should listen, and vice versa. The only way to advance morality is to discuss and analyze it, and the "don't judge" imperative prevents that. So the moral system that holds that you shouldn't judge other people is incorrect and problematic and should be discarded.
You can't say something is bad just because it is different, but that doesn't also mean that something is not bad just because it is different.
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance.
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
...What? The entire purpose of the United Nations is to govern nations, and you accept that fact when you sign the charter and join. Sure, it's not very effective at it lately -- I happen to believe that the Security Council permanent members should never have been given veto powers, because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
We don't live on a one-government planet. You might be happy with the idea that unelected officials make world-impacting decisions, dictating who (nationally speaking) can do what, or do business with whom, and trade embargos, but personally speaking, I'm not...
As above, you're welcome to not share my opinion, but at least have the courtesy to respect that it ismy opinion, and my right to hold my own opinion, without trying to make me change my mind...
because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
Because the alternative is worse. You replace dictatorship with anarchy and nothing is solved except you have traded the predictably barbaric with the chaotically monstrous. Look at what happened in countries where the will of the West was enforced, in Iraq or Libya and now Syria. Or Israel/Palestine or North/South Korea. There's a reason the UN should not be given the power to go and interfere, because their solutions are culturally relative.
Leaving aside whether I agree with the original decision to intervene (I very much disagree with Iraq), Iraq and Libya aren't cases of "all interference = bad", that's a case of "f*cking plan for what happens after you interfere". Replacing dictatorship with anarchy doesn't happen on its own, it happens due to getting rid of the dictatorship and then not staying properly involved to help prevent the anarchy. In all the 2000s wars in the Middle East the West, the United States especially, seems to have thought like this:
Overthrow government.
...?
PROFIT!
Incidentally, Syria happened all by itself. The US-led coalition isn't attacking Assad (which in principle I think is a mistake; I'm wavering on the practicality of it) and the Russians and the Shi'ite powers are directly supporting him. The rest of it is an internal civil war that began as a peaceful pro-democracy movement and was met with violent suppression. That is not the West's fault.
But what do you expect from an organisation where the US and Russia can continue their cold war using Iran and Saudi Arabia as puppets to continue it?
You think those people should be able to govern other countries on a whim?
On the contrary, I happen to think that they should be equally as subject to the organization's dictates as every other member. I explicitly stated they shouldn't have any veto, and I would have dearly loved to have seen the UN intervene militarily or with sanctions to deter Dubya's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with.
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc.,
That is absolutely reductio ad absurdum... It is saying (or at least, this is how I receive it) "We can't judge the laws in Germany (or wherever) so why bother having any laws here in America?? (or wherever)" It's a false equivalency, and not at all what I was saying or meaning.
It goes deeper than that. If you really can't judge other peoples' actions, then the whole premise of laws goes out the window, since laws are fundamentally judgements of what is right and wrong. If you can't judge right and wrong separate from how the subjects of the judgement interpret them, then how can you make laws? Their whole point is to impose patterns of behavior on people who want to behave differently.
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance.
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
Nobody thinks that's what you're saying, but if the statement of "you can't judge other moral systems" is correct, these statements like "apartheid was cool" (or at least not bad) are also correct. Such statements are not correct, apatheid was not cool, so any argument which leads to the conclusion that is is cool must be false.
Ugh, generation-bashing. We can be quite thoughtful and reasonable, you know.
Touched a nerve there? Hey, if the shoe fits... Sorry, but there are enough issues with millenials that go beyond 'generation-bashing' into valid observations. That's not to say that all are like it, but enough to maintain a healthy skepticism...
Yeah, it does touch a nerve because you guys bring this up all the time, but isn't consistent with my observations of myself or my peers. Gets real old (pun intended).
So take it up with your fellow millenials, and get them to stop letting the side down...
#AffluenzaThis #IFeelTriggeredThat
There was a time when people went to college to open their minds, to have their expectations and opinions challenged, and to learn new things... What I hear about colleges in this day and age, they're nothing but live-in creches for #SpecialSnowflakes who're trying to demand that the very curriculum and material which is studied on a course, be modified, because they find it 'problematic'...
That may well not be you and your peers. That may mean you have to work twice as hard to prove yourselves, but again, that's the fault of the other whiny millenials who created this very noticable demographic...
Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum (which is a vaild form of argument). Your argument doesn't make sense according to the value system by which we make decisions. If one cannot judge actions made under a moral code other than our own, then we cannot judge stoning of adulterers. Unless you are also arguing that we should accept stoning of adulterers (which I'm fairly certain you're not), than your argument is false. The statement that you should not judge other moral systems has no exceptions. You did not say we cannot judge trivial or harmless actions made under a moral code other than our own, you said that we cannot judge any actions made under a different moral code
Thank you for admitting that and clearing it up, perhaps jonsills will take note that you admit that it is reductio ad absurdum...
If people in Saudi Arabia want to stone adulterers, who are we in the west to tell them not to? That's not the same as finding it acceptable, but accepting that that is their culture/law. Russia has anti-homosexuality laws. I don't agree with them, but again, it's their country, their law, their place to make or amend them. If local homosexuals want to rally against the laws and try and get them changed, then morally-speaking, yes, I absolutely support them, and I hope they can get the law changed, but again, it's their gig, not yours, not mine...
As above, that may not be a tolerable opinion to you, but it is my opinion...
There are more people in the world than just "Facebook scolds" (another judgement-laden term, I might add). The fact that some people resort to impassioned hystrionics does not change the fact that there can be legitimate expectations that other groups with a demonstrably inferior moral code should change. We as a society don't just accept that many young women in Africa must undergo ritual genital mutilation, we want the people there to end that practice and use various means (some of which have their own problems) to bring about that end.
Of course there are, but that doesn't make those scolds any less irritating in their puritanical outlooks, or less bothersome to deal with...
As soon as America bans and outlaws male circumcision, then it can start talking about FGM in Africa (and even then, as I've said above, and all along, it's still not America's (or anywhere elses's) place to insist that African countries change their ways...)
As this is now significantly off-topic, and nothing more than a case of making me justify my opinion(s) I'd ask that we agree to disagree, and move on...
because it means the organization cannot enforce its dictates on people like Netanyahu and al-Assad, utter *ssholes protected by big nations from any punitive action purely for the utmost cynical strategic reasons -- but keeping strongmen and other such nasties from ruining lives is its job.
Because the alternative is worse. You replace dictatorship with anarchy and nothing is solved except you have traded the predictably barbaric with the chaotically monstrous. Look at what happened in countries where the will of the West was enforced, in Iraq or Libya and now Syria. Or Israel/Palestine or North/South Korea. There's a reason the UN should not be given the power to go and interfere, because their solutions are culturally relative.
But what do you expect from an organisation where the US and Russia can continue their cold war using Iran and Saudi Arabia as puppets to continue it?
You think those people should be able to govern other countries on a whim?
No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with.
If you really can't judge another person or group's moral code, then why bother with laws? Let people bully and steal and murder, let the strong enslave the weak, let men dominate women, etc.,
That is absolutely reductio ad absurdum... It is saying (or at least, this is how I receive it) "We can't judge the laws in Germany (or wherever) so why bother having any laws here in America?? (or wherever)" It's a false equivalency, and not at all what I was saying or meaning.
It goes deeper than that. If you really can't judge other peoples' actions, then the whole premise of laws goes out the window, since laws are fundamentally judgements of what is right and wrong. If you can't judge right and wrong separate from how the subjects of the judgement interpret them, then how can you make laws? Their whole point is to impose patterns of behavior on people who want to behave differently.
As I hadn't seen this comment when I posted my above reply, I'll reply, and then again request that we drop the conversation...
Going back to the age of consent example: In America, it varies, but the average, I believe, is 18. In the UK, it's 16, and in Germany, it's 14.
If 35 year old Hans Gruber wants to hook up with a 14 year old girl, as shady as that sounds, it's not considered a crime, unless she has a problem with it, and makes a complaint.
If 35 year old Zack Masters or John Smith wants to hook up with a 14 year old girl, they're signing the sex offender's register for life...
If 35 year old Tilly Masters hears about Hans Gruber hooking up with 14 year old Heidi, she will call him every name under the sun, and say he deserves everything from castration to a torturous death. Even though he has not broken the law which he and Heidi live under, simply done something which i) she finds morally objectionable, and ii) is against the law where she lives...
So yes, absolutely have laws, but allow each country the dignity of setting and maintaining their own laws as they see fit...
(For the record, I'm not into jail-bait, but age of consent is a topic I frequently see getting people wound up about on FB, and it is the best example I can think of, of different countries having different laws relating to the same thing)
Leaving aside whether I agree with the original decision to intervene (I very much disagree with Iraq), Iraq and Libya aren't cases of "all interference = bad", that's a case of "f*cking plan for what happens after you interfere". Replacing dictatorship with anarchy doesn't happen on its own, it happens due to getting rid of the dictatorship and then not staying properly involved to help prevent the anarchy. In all the 2000s wars in the Middle East the West, the United States especially, seems to have thought like this:
Overthrow government.
...?
PROFIT!
I don't necessarily disagree. Saddam and Gaddafi were genocidal and deserved to be hanged, but the invasion did not just remove them from power, it dismantled their regime and destroyed the power holding the tribes together as a nation. With the government and military broken SA and Iran were able to get their claws in and introduce their ridiculous squabble to another set of nations.
Yes the two dictators needed to die, but unless there was a solid plan for their replacement (hell, even a military dictatorship like in Egypt would be preferable) war should not have ever been on the table.
Incidentally, Syria happened all by itself. The US-led coalition isn't attacking Assad (which in principle I think is a mistake; I'm wavering on the practicality of it) and the Russians and the Shi'ite powers are directly supporting him. The rest of it is an internal civil war that began as a peaceful pro-democracy movement and was met with violent suppression. That is not the West's fault.
Oh but it is. As soon as the revolts started the US started supplying anti-Assad rebels with weapons and intel to help break Russia's influence in the region. Obviously that turned out exactly like every other country in the region and turns out those 'democratic protesters' were in fact Islamists and the foundation of Daish. And yet the West still couldn't keep it's paws out of the situation, instead doubling down and actively taking the side of Islamists against the only power in the region not supporting Daish and their kind.
Once upon a time the US recognised that the USSR was the lesser of two evils and allied with them against the Nasi's and after that war the USSR collapsed in on itself (eventually). Now it seems that the US is taking the side of a totalitarian caliphate over a stable dictatorship, who, lets not forget, actually is widely popular in large parts of his own country.
Veto or no, UN or no the US vs. Russia and Saudi Arabia vs. Iran wars will continue until Europe and the Middle East stops letting any of the four influence us and them.
On the contrary, I happen to think that they should be equally as subject to the organization's dictates as every other member. I explicitly stated they shouldn't have any veto, and I would have dearly loved to have seen the UN intervene militarily or with sanctions to deter Dubya's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
The veto removes the UN's power to act as the world's police. If it were not allowed and actions were not required to be unanimous then the UN could interfere more effectively in the Middle East. For instance, the cold war would become less cold right away without Russia and China preventing more direct military action there. You'd find the US, UK, and France dragging the rest of the UN into military action in direct opposition to Russia and China.
With the veto the organisation is hampered from being able to turn the cold war hot. Yes, that makes it effectively impotent, but it also prevents WWIII.
Without a veto all decisions would have to be unanimous, that removes the ability to function any more than it already is with vetoes.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
On the contrary, I happen to think that they should be equally as subject to the organization's dictates as every other member. I explicitly stated they shouldn't have any veto, and I would have dearly loved to have seen the UN intervene militarily or with sanctions to deter Dubya's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
The veto removes the UN's power to act as the world's police. If it were not allowed and actions were not required to be unanimous then the UN could interfere more effectively in the Middle East. For instance, the cold war would become less cold right away without Russia and China preventing more direct military action there. You'd find the US, UK, and France dragging the rest of the UN into military action in direct opposition to Russia and China.
With the veto the organisation is hampered from being able to turn the cold war hot. Yes, that makes it effectively impotent, but it also prevents WWIII.
Without a veto all decisions would have to be unanimous, that removes the ability to function any more than it already is with vetoes.
Why would they have to be unanimous? Why not majority rule? It works reasonably well for regular representative democracies, why not a superstate like the UN? There's enough minor nations in there for them to potentially decide that they don't want to put up with the superpowers constantly TRIBBLE with them, put it to a vote, and pass it over the superpowers' objections. Whereas as it stands, the Security Council members are free to do whatever the hell they bloody want without giving two sh*ts about the rest of the world's opinion of it, as shown by the invasion of Iraq: the UN effectively said 'no' (by not saying 'yes'), Dubya invaded anyway. Ditto Putin invading Georgia and Ukraine: practically every country in the world is saying "knock it off", but he can act with impunity because he has veto power in the UN. Might makes right.
I want the UN to act as the world's police, and in particular to police the developed nations as much as it does the weaker ones.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Comments
Great villains make great heroes. In the canon universe the best example remains the Klingon Empire. STO may dilute the Klingon identity but it is the only culture with a long standing presence within canon that has retained sovereignty both physically and culturally. The persistence of this distinctly different culture as the only credible peer to the United Federation of Planets is a testament to it's worth. Introducing a Fed like to have conflict with Feds is like listening to someone talk about how they would like to have sex with a clone of them self.
I agree, it is certainly counter to the modern generation's views, and I'm profoundly grateful that is not a generation that I belong to.
Re the second boldened point, BS. No-one, has the right to say that their lifestyle, their way of doing things, their social code, is any better than anone else's, or look down on another country for doing things differently/having laws they disagree with. I'm not apathetic, I just appreciate that there are things which I have no right to voice an opinion on, from the premise that my outlook is any better.
For example, the age of consent in Germany is 14. The amount of uptight American scolds who get irate and insist; "That's a child!!!" when discussing the topic, utterly proves the point that they expect everyone else to follow their laws, share their values, and do things the way they do.
I don't think that...
I think that Germany has the right to set its own statutes, and to deal with things in its own way.
I also know that an American or English visitor to Germany who tried to use German law to hook up with a 14 year old, would find themself in very serious trouble, because they would still be bound by the age of consent in their home country of America or England.
I don't live in Germany, I don't visit Germany, I don't have any friends or family in Germany. I have no right to say that how Things are done in Germany is wrong.
Now you're totally entitled to your own opinion on a/the subject; But the instant you start dictating that someone else must agree with you, and start using emotive terms to suggest moral failure to do so, then that is guilting, and intellectual fascism...
...
No. There is right and wrong, distinct from an individual's or society's beliefs of what is right or wrong. What is that absolute moral code? Nobody's figured it out yet, and that's why we must look at other societies and judge: to adopt what we find to be good and reject what we find to be bad, according to our own best ability. Be critical, and be self-critical. Seek alternative viewpoints, find out which pieces of the answer they have, and which pieces you can offer them.
Young age of consent is a good example, actually, because you can make reasoned arguments that it should not be so. It's not just an opinion or a tradition, you can sit down and examine it: the risks, the statistics, what you expect to happen, what actually does happen, etc. You can talk about it and reach a logical decision as to whether the law is acceptable or should change. And then you can reevaluate it as you gain new information over time. Now, you have no authority to force a change in that law, but you still can and should judge it.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Also, a true rival would have to score some victories. So far in STO, the Federation has lost some very minor battles but has not yet been defeated in any of the wars it has worked so hard to be a part of.
Damn you got issues, son...
Reductio ad absurdum... I'm not even addressing it.
People can have opinions on subjects all they like -- it's when they start trying to enforce said opinion on others that it's an issue... The attitudes and mindsets I'm talking about, are like an anti-Prime Directive: A delusion where someone thinks that everyone else, and everywhere else needs to hold the same ideals as they do... I vew the world in strictly Prime Directive-terms, ie, independent nation, not my, or anyone else's business to try and insist that they do things 'the way we do'...
Absolutely there is 'right and wrong'. But a country's laws which are different to one's home nation's laws, are not automatically 'wrong', just because they are different... That's the difference...
Sure, it can be discussed on an intellectual level, with statistics and rationality. But that's not what the fb scolds do when the topic comes up, they just rage against it because it offends their sensibilities and they feel it's wrong... That's not reasoned debate, but impassioned hystrionics.
And yes, absolutely someone can judge it and make a judgement, ie form their own opinion on the subject. But they don't then get to use that opinion as if it is a fact and expect everyone else to bow down to it and treat it as such Just Because They Said It... That's the point I was making...
There's a difference between questioning to ascertain validity, and simply being a contrarian...
So, by this logic, apartheid was cool, because we in the so-called "Western" nations had no right to say that the "lifestyle" of oppression and institutional racism was any worse than our own struggles toward tolerance. And we definitely shouldn't be upset about those nations in which being TRIBBLE is a capital crime, because who are we to say they're wrong? Child-labor laws in certain Asian nations that essentially wind up with five-year-old indentured servants on factory floors, working with highly-dangerous machines they aren't even trained to operate safely? That's their own ethics, and what right have we to impose our ethics on them?
Absolutist statements are dangerous, Marcus. (That's one of the few absolute statements I feel comfortable making.)
That's not what I was saying, or meaning. No, apartheid was not cool, but it was not Team America or the United Nations place to do anything about it, but for South Africa to sort itself out. Think Prime Directive: It's an internal matter, so not Starfleet's (the UN) place to intervene.
Same as above, and as you yourself said in your last sentence (white I'm presuming you meant facetiously, but which I mean literally:
That is precisely what I mean...
According to whom? It's just my opinion, you're welcome and entitled to not share it...
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
^^ This. The whole point of the United Nations is to Unite the Nations! Anyone who joins is recognising certain inalienable human rights. Now, that doesn't give the UN the right to pressure countries which aren't a member, but South Africa, for example, was a UN member.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Because the alternative is worse. You replace dictatorship with anarchy and nothing is solved except you have traded the predictably barbaric with the chaotically monstrous. Look at what happened in countries where the will of the West was enforced, in Iraq or Libya and now Syria. Or Israel/Palestine or North/South Korea. There's a reason the UN should not be given the power to go and interfere, because their solutions are culturally relative.
But what do you expect from an organisation where the US and Russia can continue their cold war using Iran and Saudi Arabia as puppets to continue it?
You think those people should be able to govern other countries on a whim?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think that's why Starsword explicitly criticised the Security Council's veto powers.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
But the shoe obviously fits, right? I mean look at all my impassioned hystrionics in these posts!
...oh wait.
Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum (which is a vaild form of argument). Your argument doesn't make sense according to the value system by which we make decisions. If one cannot judge actions made under a moral code other than our own, then we cannot judge stoning of adulterers. Unless you are also arguing that we should accept stoning of adulterers (which I'm fairly certain you're not), than your argument is false. The statement that you should not judge other moral systems has no exceptions. You did not say we cannot judge trivial or harmless actions made under a moral code other than our own, you said that we cannot judge any actions made under a different moral code.
There are more people in the world than just "Facebook scolds" (another judgement-laden term, I might add). The fact that some people resort to impassioned hystrionics does not change the fact that there can be legitimate expectations that other groups with a demonstrably inferior moral code should change. We as a society don't just accept that many young women in Africa must undergo ritual genital mutilation, we want the people there to end that practice and use various means (some of which have their own problems) to bring about that end.
So no, you don't get to tell people what to do just because you said it, but if you tell someone something that is right and makes sense, they should listen, and vice versa. The only way to advance morality is to discuss and analyze it, and the "don't judge" imperative prevents that. So the moral system that holds that you shouldn't judge other people is incorrect and problematic and should be discarded.
You can't say something is bad just because it is different, but that doesn't also mean that something is not bad just because it is different.
We don't live on a one-government planet. You might be happy with the idea that unelected officials make world-impacting decisions, dictating who (nationally speaking) can do what, or do business with whom, and trade embargos, but personally speaking, I'm not...
As above, you're welcome to not share my opinion, but at least have the courtesy to respect that it ismy opinion, and my right to hold my own opinion, without trying to make me change my mind...
Incidentally, Syria happened all by itself. The US-led coalition isn't attacking Assad (which in principle I think is a mistake; I'm wavering on the practicality of it) and the Russians and the Shi'ite powers are directly supporting him. The rest of it is an internal civil war that began as a peaceful pro-democracy movement and was met with violent suppression. That is not the West's fault.
On the contrary, I happen to think that they should be equally as subject to the organization's dictates as every other member. I explicitly stated they shouldn't have any veto, and I would have dearly loved to have seen the UN intervene militarily or with sanctions to deter Dubya's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Nobody thinks that's what you're saying, but if the statement of "you can't judge other moral systems" is correct, these statements like "apartheid was cool" (or at least not bad) are also correct. Such statements are not correct, apatheid was not cool, so any argument which leads to the conclusion that is is cool must be false.
So take it up with your fellow millenials, and get them to stop letting the side down...
#AffluenzaThis #IFeelTriggeredThat
There was a time when people went to college to open their minds, to have their expectations and opinions challenged, and to learn new things... What I hear about colleges in this day and age, they're nothing but live-in creches for #SpecialSnowflakes who're trying to demand that the very curriculum and material which is studied on a course, be modified, because they find it 'problematic'...
That may well not be you and your peers. That may mean you have to work twice as hard to prove yourselves, but again, that's the fault of the other whiny millenials who created this very noticable demographic...
Thank you for admitting that and clearing it up, perhaps jonsills will take note that you admit that it is reductio ad absurdum...
If people in Saudi Arabia want to stone adulterers, who are we in the west to tell them not to? That's not the same as finding it acceptable, but accepting that that is their culture/law. Russia has anti-homosexuality laws. I don't agree with them, but again, it's their country, their law, their place to make or amend them. If local homosexuals want to rally against the laws and try and get them changed, then morally-speaking, yes, I absolutely support them, and I hope they can get the law changed, but again, it's their gig, not yours, not mine...
As above, that may not be a tolerable opinion to you, but it is my opinion...
Of course there are, but that doesn't make those scolds any less irritating in their puritanical outlooks, or less bothersome to deal with...
As soon as America bans and outlaws male circumcision, then it can start talking about FGM in Africa (and even then, as I've said above, and all along, it's still not America's (or anywhere elses's) place to insist that African countries change their ways...)
As this is now significantly off-topic, and nothing more than a case of making me justify my opinion(s) I'd ask that we agree to disagree, and move on...
Going back to the age of consent example: In America, it varies, but the average, I believe, is 18. In the UK, it's 16, and in Germany, it's 14.
If 35 year old Hans Gruber wants to hook up with a 14 year old girl, as shady as that sounds, it's not considered a crime, unless she has a problem with it, and makes a complaint.
If 35 year old Zack Masters or John Smith wants to hook up with a 14 year old girl, they're signing the sex offender's register for life...
If 35 year old Tilly Masters hears about Hans Gruber hooking up with 14 year old Heidi, she will call him every name under the sun, and say he deserves everything from castration to a torturous death. Even though he has not broken the law which he and Heidi live under, simply done something which i) she finds morally objectionable, and ii) is against the law where she lives...
So yes, absolutely have laws, but allow each country the dignity of setting and maintaining their own laws as they see fit...
(For the record, I'm not into jail-bait, but age of consent is a topic I frequently see getting people wound up about on FB, and it is the best example I can think of, of different countries having different laws relating to the same thing)
I don't necessarily disagree. Saddam and Gaddafi were genocidal and deserved to be hanged, but the invasion did not just remove them from power, it dismantled their regime and destroyed the power holding the tribes together as a nation. With the government and military broken SA and Iran were able to get their claws in and introduce their ridiculous squabble to another set of nations.
Yes the two dictators needed to die, but unless there was a solid plan for their replacement (hell, even a military dictatorship like in Egypt would be preferable) war should not have ever been on the table.
Oh but it is. As soon as the revolts started the US started supplying anti-Assad rebels with weapons and intel to help break Russia's influence in the region. Obviously that turned out exactly like every other country in the region and turns out those 'democratic protesters' were in fact Islamists and the foundation of Daish. And yet the West still couldn't keep it's paws out of the situation, instead doubling down and actively taking the side of Islamists against the only power in the region not supporting Daish and their kind.
Once upon a time the US recognised that the USSR was the lesser of two evils and allied with them against the Nasi's and after that war the USSR collapsed in on itself (eventually). Now it seems that the US is taking the side of a totalitarian caliphate over a stable dictatorship, who, lets not forget, actually is widely popular in large parts of his own country.
Veto or no, UN or no the US vs. Russia and Saudi Arabia vs. Iran wars will continue until Europe and the Middle East stops letting any of the four influence us and them.
The veto removes the UN's power to act as the world's police. If it were not allowed and actions were not required to be unanimous then the UN could interfere more effectively in the Middle East. For instance, the cold war would become less cold right away without Russia and China preventing more direct military action there. You'd find the US, UK, and France dragging the rest of the UN into military action in direct opposition to Russia and China.
With the veto the organisation is hampered from being able to turn the cold war hot. Yes, that makes it effectively impotent, but it also prevents WWIII.
Without a veto all decisions would have to be unanimous, that removes the ability to function any more than it already is with vetoes.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Why would they have to be unanimous? Why not majority rule? It works reasonably well for regular representative democracies, why not a superstate like the UN? There's enough minor nations in there for them to potentially decide that they don't want to put up with the superpowers constantly TRIBBLE with them, put it to a vote, and pass it over the superpowers' objections. Whereas as it stands, the Security Council members are free to do whatever the hell they bloody want without giving two sh*ts about the rest of the world's opinion of it, as shown by the invasion of Iraq: the UN effectively said 'no' (by not saying 'yes'), Dubya invaded anyway. Ditto Putin invading Georgia and Ukraine: practically every country in the world is saying "knock it off", but he can act with impunity because he has veto power in the UN. Might makes right.
I want the UN to act as the world's police, and in particular to police the developed nations as much as it does the weaker ones.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/