Moral and legal questions on belting

youdontknowme

Milord Well… there are pedagogical theories I stick to. Of course, I’m lucky to have a wife who is a professional in this field, but crushing a person and building them from scratch is not a recognized theory. What is pacific is that a child grows stronger with encouragement and praise from his family. With love and compassion. The contrary creates bitter, unhappy, and insecure people who more often than not will perpetrate this to their children.

Maybe they learned from a drill sergeant, not from a pedagogue.

Milord If there is no rebelling, control continue to tighten.

They might see unquestioning obedience as a desirable quality, not as a weakness. Knowing your place in the hierarchy and acting acvording to it.

curious

youdontknowme They might see unquestioning obedience as a desirable quality, not as a weakness. Knowing your place in the hierarchy and acting acvording to it.

It all comes down to individual values and the society we live in. In Japanese culture for example strict adherance to rules is nornal and individual freedoms take a subordinate position.

Milord

youdontknowme They might see unquestioning obedience as a desirable quality, not as a weakness. Knowing your place in the hierarchy and acting acvording to it.

IT is a weakness in willpower because it will make children less able to think with their head and act accordingly. Now, my personal idea is to grow a free man and not a slave. Of course if someone else wants to raise an obedient drone, my position is not applicable at all.

Milord

curious
This came from a first hand experience or you just stick to a general idea?

curious

Milord
I have friends from Japan. But it is actually well known how different that country is culturally. For example on public transport people don't talk but travel quietly in order not to disturb others. Not a law but a cultural norm observed by almost everyone.
Same with J-walking. Never happens, even if there is zero traffic.

Angelina

Milord “I will pay all your needs, but you have to successfully pass exams” yes
“I I will pay all your needs, but you have to accept marrying a girl I decided for you” no
“I will support your project, but you have to show me your business case” yes
“I will support your project, but you have to put a chastity cage” no

and that's exactly what I meant by middle way and that I of course expect certain things in return for financial support. I agree with you and don't see that we contradict each other

Milord Ok, I need to make more likes to you so you know I’m not hostile 🤗

I think you mean well, but don't you think it's a bit tedious to talk everything over and over again until in the end no one knows what the other person really means? I rarely contradict your opinions because sometimes I don't understand them, it's too detailed in some places for me, which makes it difficult to get a general picture

Milord

Angelina I agree with you and don't see that we contradict each other

We don't. It happens.

Angelina I think you mean well, but don't you think it's a bit tedious to talk everything over and over again until in the end no one knows what the other person really means? I rarely contradict your opinions because sometimes I don't understand them, it's too detailed in some places for me, which makes it difficult to get a general picture

My English is meant for business, and this forum is the only opportunity to talk about things not related to business. Even so, often I write while in business call, so maybe my way is "altered" by it.
Trying to get better (aka "improve your english on a chastity forum")
Also not very familiar with emoticon, and often my humor is not perceived as such (even by my colleagues, but they can at least see my face). And to complete, I'm 50, even with a younger wife and a very young son, I'm still older than a lot of you.
Please ask. This will allow me to express myself better.

Angelina

Milord

my english is not really good either, i am trying to improve it to make it clearer in the future when i agree and when i disagree with you 🙂

Milord

Angelina
Maybe I have to write: I agree / disagree and then explaining reasons. I know that very often I agree and still answer to add details. I realise now that this appear as a disagreement from my part.
I will do better. Thank you for pointing out. For me it’s important that other understand me.

curious

Angelina my english is not really good either,

You are married to a native speaker. Use that opportunity to improve. Within a few years you can reach a level far beyond what the average person in Germany has.

Angelina

Milord I know that very often I agree and still answer to add details. I realise now that this appear as a disagreement from my part.

i know the problem too, sometimes you just want to add something that you don't think was said

curious You are married to a native speaker. Use that opportunity to improve. Within a few years you can reach a level far beyond what the average person in Germany has.

she tries to help me, but I have more of a Günther Oettinger English 😂

youdontknowme

Angelina https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/images/40f52c9b-0001-0005-0000-000000845739_w299_r0.7119047619047619_fpx52.85_fpy47.15.webp

curious

EDITED
@Laura @Brian please move the next posts. Morality and legality, or something like that, please. Inés.

WriterAlexis
Of course it was illegal.
Apart from the fact that a government kills a person that has not been convicted, the US violated the territory (air space) of another country to carry out that strike. That makes it most definitely illegal.

Imagine China doing the exact same thing over / in the US. The outcry would be deafening.

But that is exactly the point. Things can be illegal and still be morally justified and vice versa.

WriterAlexis

curious

US violated the territory (air space) of another country to carry out that strike. That makes it most definitely illegal.

Huh? I'm pretty sure the Third Reich didn't invite B-17s and Lancaster bombers to carpet/fire bomb its nice factories and cities. So that was "illegal" too?

youdontknowme

WriterAlexis More like illegal consultancy.
Over here in Germany they just took down a website that sold stuff like drugs, guns and fake IDs. Damn killjoys.

WriterAlexis Was the drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen who had never been tried or convicted of anything in a US court, a crime?

I don't think you can find a single person making a valid argument that it was illegal.

I mean, he was residing in Yemen and has been on a "wanted dead of alive" list by the Yemeni government. They got him dead. Seems pretty legal to me.

Though now I have to imagine the diplomacy if someone were to claim that as a US citizen, he should have been rescued from Yemen. The US embassy in Yemen trying to persuade the government of Yemen to condemn the killing of one of its citizens by a foreign power operating in their country; that foreign government being the US themselves.

6373e6b2

WriterAlexis the Third reich probably thought that it was illegal. But it happened in openly declared war, which more or less is about the parties involved in the conflict having mutually incompatible ideas about what is legal.

curious

WriterAlexis
As far as I know during that time Germany and the US were at war. So while of course not welcome, the US planes entered German air space under internationally recognised rules of war.
Now, maybe I have missed something, but when was there the declaration of war between the US and Yemen (he was killed there, was he?)? Unless Yemen's government had given permission to the US to carry out the drone strike, entering into Yemen air space was illegal. And we all know that of course the US do not ask. Old principle: much easier to appologise afterwards instead of asking permission before.

WriterAlexis

curious

On October 1, 2001, the US invoked Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty against al-Qaida, so in theory all members of NATO were at war with al-Qaida.

Anwar al-Awlaki was part of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, along with having ties to Somalia's al-Shabaab network. He spent 4 years operating from the Houthi controlled portion of Yemen, which has been at war with the internationally recognized Yemeni government since the 90s.

The thing that makes him interesting is that both he and his son were the targets of lawfully ordered drone strikes by President Obama after they had been placed on a CIA kill-list, despite being unconvicted US citizens.

curious

WriterAlexis
The problem with that:
Qaida is not a country. Invoking NATO article V is a publissity stunt but nothing that has a legal consequence in this case. Yes, now all. NATO countries are at war with Al-Qaida, but that is useless as long as there is not a target to fight.
Yemen is neither a NATO country nor Al-Qaida. Maybe rebells are pro Al-Qaida, but the territorial integrity is still to be respected. So technically it was a neutral 3rd party country and the US has no right to execute military actions over neutral territory. Unless the government of Yemen has given permission.
That however is a recurring problem in US behaviour. Just because you are in a position of power and CAN does not mean you have the right to do something.
Imagine China executing a drone strike against a Chinese citizen and outspoken opponent of the communist leadership over US territory.
Do you believe for one second, the US would not go ballistic over that?
So why iare the US doing things they would never accept in reversed roles? This is a double standard that does not sit well with the rest of the world when we look at the US.

Andrew

curious So why iare the US doing things they would never accept in reversed roles? This is a double standard that does not sit well with the rest of the world when we look at the US.

The anti-terrorist actions of Western countries in the territories of failed states (or those with a highly dysfunctional state apparatus) are, in my view, legitimate. They stem from the right to self-defence and war. If the US could not in a 'civilised' way get Anwar al-Awlaki detained by the Yemeni authorities (because they are corrupt and ineffective), and perceived him as a significant threat to its citizens in relation to his terrorist activities, it used the available means of a UAV attack. This is in no way comparable to the assassinations of dissidents carried out by totalitarian countries outside their borders, because dissidents not carrying out terrorist activities, they are just opposing the authorities.

As an aside. I am not a believer, but perhaps the best description of the right of the state to use armed force to defend society is probably Canon 2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defence of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

« Previous Page Next Page »