NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a university student living in Bangkok, Thailand, and I come here to let the
world know that there is one country on this good earth where injustice and
hatred reign over its population, and anyone who defies the cruel regime will be
mercilessly suppressed...

My friend, Chotisak Onsoong, a political activist who protested against the
royally-endorsed 2006 coup, is in grave trouble. He is charged with lese majeste
("disrespect the king") laws and could face 15 years in jail. What has he done
to deserve such trial?? Well,

He remained seated in cinema while the propaganda music video about Thai king
was being played. He was assaulted, verbally abused, and driven out of cinema
by another movie-goer. But when he tried to file complain to the police about
how he had been treated, he was instead charged with lese majeste.

You can read about this incident here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3803939.ece
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBKK24418820080422?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1164&Itemid=31
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=609


Lese majeste in Thailand is probably one of the most draconian laws in the world.
It granted maximum authority over all of Thai population to the royal family,
and it has been used to crush down any opponent in the past recent years.

Please don't say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Chotisak is a Thai
citizen but he rejected to follow such slave-like way of living. The laws that
is intended to punish anyone who thinks differently is unacceptable in this
modern world.

All I ask of you is to acknowledge this crime which Thai state inflicted upon
its own civilian. Chotisak would be surely put in jail, and there is no hope to
do anything about it.

All I want now, is that this crime will not go unnoticed by the outside world.

Revolution.

im thai and even i know that rule...its not that much of a hassle if you follow it ....so wtf get yourself into trouble its the ways its always bben so GO WITH THE FLOW

Despicable practice and injusice and all that, but frankly, if the regime is as infamous and dastardly as you say, why did your friend not simply conform?

im thai and even i know that rule...its not that much of a hassle if you follow it ....so wtf get yourself into trouble its the ways its always bben so GO WITH THE FLOW
That's not how it works. It doesn't matter how long a law has been in place or how easy it is to follow. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is a good law.

This isn't, he shouldn't be charged and the Thai justice system can go and get stuffed.

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter how long a law has been in place or how easy it is to follow. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is a good law.

This isn't, he shouldn't be charged and the Thai justice system can go and get stuffed.

It's surprising how easily a statement along those lines rolls off the tongue, or keyboard, many thousands of miles removed from the country, secure in a western democracy.

I agree that the law is asinine, and the punishment excessive, however, prudence should still prevail, and standing up for royal propaganda is hardly an exacting activity.

if the regime is as infamous and dastardly as you say, why did your friend not simply conform?
Because he is a political activist (http://www.amnesty.or.th/detail.asp?lan=en&menu_id=4&news_id=218
) and he wanted to make a statement, I guess.

I agree that the law is asinine, and the punishment excessive, however, prudence should still prevail, and standing up for royal propaganda is hardly an exacting activity.
Yeah, but my problem was more in the "it's always been that way, so go with the flow" part of the post. Yes, sometimes it's easier to follow an unjust law - but that's not a reason to follow it, or to say that someone who gets punished for breaking it had it coming in any way. Afterall, there have been many unjust laws that people could easily have followed but made a point not to, eventually changing the law in the process.

Because he is a political activist (http://www.amnesty.or.th/detail.asp?lan=en&menu_id=4&news_id=218
) and he wanted to make a statement, I guess.

There are better ways to rebel and express discontent than arrest and incarceration for 15 years.

Yeah, but my problem was more in the "it's always been that way, so go with the flow" part of the post. Yes, sometimes it's easier to follow an unjust law - but that's not a reason to follow it, or to say that someone who gets punished for breaking it had it coming in any way. Afterall, there have been many unjust laws that people could easily have followed but made a point not to, eventually changing the law in the process.

The activist concerned did "have it coming". Unless he was merely a Che t-shirt wearing rebellious teen, he must have had a notion of how he would have been treated.

In any case, I doubt you, or any of us here, would do as he did. For most people, prudence takes precedence.

Yeah, but my problem was more in the "it's always been that way, so go with the flow" part of the post. Yes, sometimes it's easier to follow an unjust law - but that's not a reason to follow it, or to say that someone who gets punished for breaking it had it coming in any way. Afterall, there have been many unjust laws that people could easily have followed but made a point not to, eventually changing the law in the process.

I don't know why, but something about this post really strikes me as the kind of "white mans burden" excuse Europeans, although it was mostly Americans, used to use to squash other "inferior" nations with to give them a "moral" standing. Just saying.

In any case, I doubt you, or any of us here, would do as he did. For most people, prudence takes precedence.
Certainly. When I was counting people coming into the polling station in Poland in the 80s, I took precautionary measures to avoid being spotted as doing something out of the ordinary, because I knew there are security police agents watching the whole show incognito. But I nevertheless admire the man for having the guts to stand up for his ideals despite the cost. I hope his case leads to lifting this ridiculous, medieval law.

Certainly. When I was counting people coming into the polling station in Poland in the 80s, I took precautionary measures to avoid being spotted as doing something out of the ordinary, because I knew there are security police agents watching the whole show incognito. But I nevertheless admire the man for having the guts to stand up for his ideals despite the cost. I hope his case leads to lifting this ridiculous, medieval law.

The law should be abjured, however, I would still advise prudence; if the law is as generally disliked as the OP would have us believe, surely the popular clamours for its removal will see it done anyway?

he should of used peaceful debate and all that stuff to change the law, not break it and moan when he gets punished for breaking the law.

hard cheese I say

he should of used peaceful debate and all that stuff to change the law, not break it and moan when he gets punished for breaking the law.
Is that what you would say to Rosa Parks?

Is that what you would say to Rosa Parks?

Yes, although she wasn't facing 15 years in prison for her protest.

he should of used peaceful debate and all that stuff to change the law, not break it and moan when he gets punished for breaking the law.

hard cheese I say

Peaceful debate works only when the other side is open to it.

If Thailand had a US style court system and US values, he'd have a fair chance. (And if it was Ninth Circuit Court, an easy win, and he'd sue for a huge pile of punitive damages, and win that too)

If it's more like the system used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he's doomed:

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
-- Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Now at least someone knows why Americans are convinced there is something special about their system.

since Chotisak Onsoong is doing this in order to challenge the law ill wait until his legal struggle is completed before i get all upset about him facing charges that he willingly brought on himself.

Is that what you would say to Rosa Parks?

yes. she broke the law because she couldn't be bothered

Peaceful debate works only when the other side is open to it.

or when you convince the general public

Is that what you would say to Rosa Parks?

Did Rosa Parks piss and moan when she was arrested?:confused:

Did Rosa Parks piss and moan when she was arrested?:confused:
I don't know, did Otisak?
Seriously guys, I am fucking speechless. The miners in December 1981 who were assaulted by police supported by tanks were breaking the law too, go tell the families of those who died that they had it coming.

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter how long a law has been in place or how easy it is to follow. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is a good law.

This isn't, he shouldn't be charged and the Thai justice system can go and get stuffed.

How do you propose to stuff them? Shall we all march there en masse? Perhaps we can tell Dubya that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Does anyone, any country, have the right to force another country to change their ways just because we don't like them? Isn't everyone castigating the US because we've done that very thing? Their government and their laws, however bad and evil they may be?

The law is unfortunate, and the punishment absurd. And I support your friend. However, remember that when you are a political activist, you need to be prepared and expect these kind of things.

I suggest a military Coup in Thailand!
First we convince Mr Bush there's oil there, then we convince him there's terrorists, then third he invades saves the guy and we get to go home and have a BBQ, job done.
next!

It's surprising how easily a statement along those lines rolls off the tongue, or keyboard, many thousands of miles removed from the country, secure in a western democracy.

Our willingness to make statements like that, and to fight to defend them, is why we have a western democracy.

I know you're a big fan of authoritarian regimes, but not everyone feels that way about them.

I suggest a military Coup in Thailand!
First we convince Mr Bush there's oil there, then we convince him there's terrorists, then third he invades saves the guy and we get to go home and have a BBQ, job done.
next!


Really, after the first one is all itd take.

Our willingness to make statements like that, and to fight to defend them, is why we have a western democracy.

I know you're a big fan of authoritarian regimes, but not everyone feels that way about them.

I assume therefore that you know, with total certitude, that you would do exactly the same as the activist mentioned?

Barbaric... and sad.:(

If this person wished to protest a law by violating it, that is perfectly valid, and I support him.

However, civil disobedience has another aspect: you must also be willing to pay the price for your actions, no matter how unjust. If you're not willing to follow through, as King and his followers, and Gandhi and his followers, did do, then you're not a protestor, you're just a whiny git.

However, civil disobedience has another aspect: you must also be willing to pay the price for your actions, no matter how unjust.

depends on the strategy. if the strategy is to make the state offend the sensibilities of people through its unjust treatment, then yeah, a big part of the point is to take the beatings and face jail time. but if those are not the only reasonable tactics available within the framework of civil disobedience.

Really, after the first one is all itd take.
ah the voice of cynicism. hows yourself doing these days after that award you got? you slimy bastard. hehehe
:)
Barbaric... and sad.:(

this is true, however i find posting on NSG helps, even better when there's lolcats too, cos they're awesome.
and my suggestion for revolution i think is the best chance we have of helping them. poor Thailand, i'll dedicate one of my drinks to it's better future.

If you're not willing to follow through...
Who says this guy isn't "following through"???

Who says this guy isn't "following through"???

No one.

Because he is a political activist (http://www.amnesty.or.th/detail.asp?lan=en&menu_id=4&news_id=218
) and he wanted to make a statement, I guess.

He was in a movie theater. what sort of political activism goes on there? protesting against Hollywood? sounds like he just didn't want to do what was socially and legally required of him.

ah the voice of cynicism. hows yourself doing these days after that award you got? you slimy bastard. hehehe
:)


this is true, however i find posting on NSG helps, even better when there's lolcats too, cos they're awesome.
and my suggestion for revolution i think is the best chance we have of helping them. poor Thailand, i'll dedicate one of my drinks to it's better future.

Come on MHiJ, be a sport.:p

Ok.

1. I'm surprised you didn't ask us for our Credit Card #, Social Security #, and our bank account information.

2. What do you want us to do exactly?

He was in a movie theater. what sort of political activism goes on there? protesting against Hollywood? sounds like he just didn't want to do what was socially and legally required of him.
Excuse me, but that's just absolutely ridiculous.

A gaffe, perhaps, but it's a clear violation of rights to be summarily imprisoned for not standing up during the previews.

The question of what we can do about it is, of course, an open one. I'm not about to swim over to Thailand with an AK-47 clamped in my teeth and singlehandedly overthrow the current government by force. I'm thinking that trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure are of course apropos at a minimum.

I assume therefore that you know, with total certitude, that you would do exactly the same as the activist mentioned?

No, I don't know that with "total certitude", but my failure to do that would be due to my lack of courage. But I know I owe the freedom we live with today to other people brave enough to do things like this.

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
-- Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Welcome to Canada.
And of course you can really substitute any country and concept into that phrase.

I'm not about to swim over to Thailand with an AK-47 clamped in my teeth and singlehandedly overthrow the current government by force.

wuss

This form of protest works a lot better if everyone does it. If you're the only one to do it, you take your life into your own hands, the way Rosa Parks did. Rosa Parks got lucky in that enough people were pissed off about her arrest to make a difference. That kind of change is difficult.

That said, I assure you I am not going to Thailand on vacation anytime soon.

ah the voice of cynicism. hows yourself doing these days after that award you got? you slimy bastard. hehehe
:)

I feel like people expect more of me;)


Luckily Im arrogant enough for it to not bother me:p

Good for him. He should burn in hell for disrespecting the sovereignty of such an important leader.

Huh? ok, if it wern't for several things, I would be in full agreement with you.

He remained seated in cinema while the propaganda music video about Thai king was being played. He was assaulted, verbally abused, and driven out of cinema by another movie-goer. But when he tried to file complain to the police about how he had been treated, he was instead charged with lese majeste. ok, if one is KNOWINGLY breaking the law, and your articles do state that he knows about such laws, why would he then go to the police where the police would then learn of him breaking the law?

I would've blogged it and cast it into the wide world of the net.

but what he did was like a bank robber fleeing the bank and get's mugged. he then goes to report the mugging to the police.

or a drug maker taking his pink colored narcotics to the Police Drug Lab to have it tested to see if it's safe...



Lese majeste in Thailand is probably one of the most draconian laws in the world.
It granted maximum authority over all of Thai population to the royal family,
and it has been used to crush down any opponent in the past recent years.

Please don't say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Chotisak is a Thai
citizen but he rejected to follow such slave-like way of living. The laws that
is intended to punish anyone who thinks differently is unacceptable in this
modern world.

All I ask of you is to acknowledge this crime which Thai state inflicted upon
its own civilian. Chotisak would be surely put in jail, and there is no hope to
do anything about it.

All I want now, is that this crime will not go unnoticed by the outside world. He purposely broke the law and is being punished for it.

While I respect you fighting for your friend, I would say, stop trying to get him free, and instead highlight the dracoian law and how unfairly a loyal citizen of Thailand is being treated. (Note, you don't have to say he's loyal to the king, but to Thailand.)

He is a known political activist and a self proclaimed republican. I have no sympathy for him, and he had it coming.

If he was just an ignorant, stupid teenager in the throes of youthful mis-placed idealism, it should have been ignored. But the guy is obviously making a political statement and has actively courted the press in a bid to publicise his ideology.

All I regret about this incident is that the media has been allowed to cover the issue and thus give him the limelight he wanted. This should have been subject to a press blackout. He can't be allowed to be a martyr for his cause because that is exactly what he wants.

Whether or not this is best achieved through a royal pardon (could be good PR) or attempting to persuade him to publicly recant in return for release (better, but might backfire once he's off the leash) or just to leave him in prison and wait for the fuss to die down is debatable. His petition hasn't exactly been a beacon of support so it's doubtful there are many people who will keep up a campaign.

Either way, whatever happens to him, he deserves it.

He is a known political activist and a self proclaimed republican. I have no sympathy for him, and he had it coming.

If he was just an ignorant, stupid teenager in the throes of youthful mis-placed idealism, it should have been ignored. But the guy is obviously making a political statement and has actively courted the press in a bid to publicise his ideology.

All I regret about this incident is that the media has been allowed to cover the issue and thus give him the limelight he wanted. This should have been subject to a press blackout. He can't be allowed to be a martyr for his cause because that is exactly what he wants.

Whether or not this is best achieved through a royal pardon (could be good PR) or attempting to persuade him to publicly recant in return for release (better, but might backfire once he's off the leash) or just to leave him in prison and wait for the fuss to die down is debatable. His petition hasn't exactly been a beacon of support so it's doubtful there are many people who will keep up a campaign.

Either way, whatever happens to him, he deserves it.

Yeah, seriously, what is up with the media being allowed to show the application of a horridly unjust law. They should have been forced to say nothing, by all of their respective governments (?) because freedom of the press is completley subservient to the whims of a king. Seriously guys, show this man some respect. He was born into a royal family. Do you even know how hard that is? I bet you wouldn't be able to be born into a royal family. He deserves our deference. This protestor completely deserves to be thrown into prison for exercising his fundamental human rights. Fuck this guy, he got what was coming to him.

:sniper: that law!!!

Being send to jail for disrespecting the king is soooooo middle ages!!
Ow no, they didn't even do it then.. Fuck the thai government and its :headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang: law

:sniper: that law!!!

Being send to jail for disrespecting the king is soooooo middle ages!!
Ow no, they didn't even do it then.. Fuck the thai government and its :headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang: law

Wow... intrepid useage of smileys to convey a point? Personally, I think words are better, but we get you.;)

Yeah, seriously, what is up with the media being allowed to show the application of a horridly unjust law. They should have been forced to say nothing, by all of their respective governments

Because we never use press blackouts on poltical cases anywhere esle? it's a common act to refuse press exposure to certain criminal proceedings, especially where the crime was an attempt to pull a PR stunt.

because freedom of the press is completley subservient to the whims of a king.

Press freedoms (rights) also entail press responcibilities. I dont think the press is wrong in this case, as no blackout was ordered. Why it wasn't ordered is what I don't understand.

This protestor completely deserves to be thrown into prison for exercising his fundamental human rights. Fuck this guy, he got what was coming to him.

What's fundamental about having the right not be convicted for an offence you committed to get some publicity?

Yes, he has got what was coming to him. He may get a royal pardon, but that's not for the media, nor public opinion, to decide.

Good for him. He should burn in hell for disrespecting the sovereignty of such an important leader.

obvious troll is obvious:rolleyes:

("disrespect the king") laws and could face 15 years in jail. What has he done
to deserve such trial?? Well,

he broke the law.
I lived in Thailand during the Vietnam war for a year. I was stationed at Utapao AB. I found the Thai people to be very friendly, hospitable, and wonderful people. I also learned there a few things you don't do when living in Thailand:
1. Never, ever, disrespect the King.
2. Never, disrespect a Thai.
3. Never pat a child on the head.
4. Always keep both feet on the floor when sitting down.
5. If you do any of the above or break any of their laws, be prepared to pay the consequences.

Oh, I heard back then that Thai jails are not nice places. I'm sorry your friend decided to break the law instead of working to change it. I hope he is brave enough to accept the consequences of his actions.

I am a university student living in Bangkok, Thailand, and I come here to let the
world know that there is one country on this good earth where injustice and
hatred reign over its population, and anyone who defies the cruel regime will be
mercilessly suppressed...
Not one country; there are lots of countries like this and people keep going to them and then getting surprised when they suffer the consequences.

I'm not trying to downplay the gravity of the situation; I just wish people would learn that going to these 'exotic' countries is dangerous.

Being send to jail for disrespecting the king is soooooo middle ages!!

Not really. Entrails is more of the Middle Ages' style.

I don't know why, but something about this post really strikes me as the kind of "white mans burden" excuse Europeans, although it was mostly Americans, used to use to squash other "inferior" nations with to give them a "moral" standing. Just saying.
And why would you be saying that? Don't you think there are laws that are objectively evil and that overthrowing would be a good deed, or even a responsibility? From Holocaust over Apartheid to "you got raped, so now you're a whore and need to be stoned to death", there were and are many examples of such law.

You know quite well that I'm not after building an empire or forcing my views on anyone. The latter might have you wondering, but this dude is having views forced upon him. He didn't choose to have to follow these laws, no sane person would. By removing them, we're not imposing anything, we're removing an imposition. These laws aren't "part of their culture" either - there is no cultural justification for them. They're all purely political.

This is someone standing up to political oppression and now suffering for it. I find that problematic, and I'm amazed how many people don't.

Does anyone, any country, have the right to force another country to change their ways just because we don't like them?
It's not "just because we don't like them". It's because they're wrong, because going to jail for 15 years for not kowtowing the picture of some dude violates basic tenets of proper human existence.

Does that mean we must change them? Well, if they're evil then we might say there is a certain obligation to. But simply because there seems to be no feasible way of changing them without causing even more pain is not an excuse to not just tolerate their existence but actively condone what is being done to this man, which is what many in this thread are doing.

Isn't everyone castigating the US because we've done that very thing? Their government and their laws, however bad and evil they may be?
What an odd thing to say. Either you use the word "evil", and then that has certain implications, or you should say what you actually mean, namely that there is nothing objectively wrong with this law.

I don't know why everyone is castigating the US. I am doing it because if someone wanted to overthrow a regime to free people from oppressive laws, there were more worthy targets than Iraq. It also should have been done much better than it was. So basically I have questions about the motives and flat-out disagreement with the methods. What I wouldn't do is say that removing a murderous dictator is a bad thing in principle.

Oh, I heard back then that Thai jails are not nice places. I'm sorry your friend decided to break the law instead of working to change it. I hope he is brave enough to accept the consequences of his actions.
This isn't about the king, it's about the king being used to justify something that is wrong. I know I would feel pretty patronised myself if that was the way the powers that be treated me.

And again: just because in Saudi Arabia you don't have any contact with a woman before you marry her, should people who do anyways just shut up about being publically beaten or killed? "That's the way it is there" is not a reason to accept or tolerate something.

he should of used peaceful debate and all that stuff to change the law, not break it and moan when he gets punished for breaking the law.

hard cheese I say
Worst is, that's not allowed most of the times as well. Well, what to say really, ofcourse he could've seen it coming, ofcourse it's outragious what's being done to him. But what to do, what to do... at least he made a clear statement.
And why would you be saying that? Don't you think there are laws that are objectively evil and that overthrowing would be a good deed, or even a responsibility? From Holocaust over Apartheid to "you got raped, so now you're a whore and need to be stoned to death", there were and are many examples of such law.

You know quite well that I'm not after building an empire or forcing my views on anyone. The latter might have you wondering, but this dude is having views forced upon him. He didn't choose to have to follow these laws, no sane person would. By removing them, we're not imposing anything, we're removing an imposition. These laws aren't "part of their culture" either - there is no cultural justification for them. They're all purely political.

This is someone standing up to political oppression and now suffering for it. I find that problematic, and I'm amazed how many people don't.
It's NOT for another country to judge what's best and America does NOT have the right to decide what's best (who the héll do they think they are anyway??), it's for the inhabitants of that country to do. Should we help them? Yes, but NOT by invading a souvereign country wich has not attacked or provoked us in any way. That's simply unjust, and violence and war only causes more suffering, you can see the clear results all over the damned world. Those idea's are out-dated and simply retarted.
PS: Politics is part of culture as well.

It's NOT for another country to judge what's best and America does NOT have the right to decide what's best (who the héll do they think they are anyway??), it's for the inhabitants of that country to do.
I don't think I advocated an invasion or anything of the sort. I simply find it astonishing how many people in this thread take a "blame the victim" approach to political oppression.

PS: Politics is part of culture as well.
In an extremely indirect way, in that parts of political ideas form the overall construct that we might call "culture". Realistically, it wasn't cultural imperialism to introduce democracy to Germany or Japan, and you wouldn't say that Thai culture would be radically different if this law were to be removed.

But on a more general level, I tend to take culture to be associated with individual people, as the ideas and values they hold and which may have been influenced by others. As such they're characteristics of the agents, not the relationships between them. And those relationships are given by liberal values, which are required for humans to live - things like refraining from the use of force, mutual tolerance and respect and so on. It is possible that an non-liberal outcome could be produced, but that would require that everyone actually agrees to these rules. This guy clearly didn't agree to this particular law, and whatever people think of the king or of dissent has no rightful place in determining how this man should treat an ad of the king - that's his own decision and nobody else's. If they would stand up, they're welcome to. But they don't have the right to force others, regardless what culture they or their victim claim allegiance to.

I don't think I advocated an invasion or anything of the sort. I simply find it astonishing how many people in this thread take a "blame the victim" approach to political oppression.
Ok, then I misunderstood you, ofcourse the victim in this case could've seen it coming and probably did it on purpose even though he knew what that ment, he still is the victim of a brutal regime. Can't argue with that really.
In an extremely indirect way, in that parts of political ideas form the overall construct that we might call "culture". Realistically, it wasn't cultural imperialism to introduce democracy to Germany or Japan, and you wouldn't say that Thai culture would be radically different if this law were to be removed.

But on a more general level, I tend to take culture to be associated with individual people, as the ideas and values they hold and which may have been influenced by others. As such they're characteristics of the agents, not the relationships between them. And those relationships are given by liberal values, which are required for humans to live - things like refraining from the use of force, mutual tolerance and respect and so on. It is possible that an non-liberal outcome could be produced, but that would require that everyone actually agrees to these rules. This guy clearly didn't agree to this particular law, and whatever people think of the king or of dissent has no rightful place in determining how this man should treat an ad of the king - that's his own decision and nobody else's. If they would stand up, they're welcome to. But they don't have the right to force others, regardless what culture they or their victim claim allegiance to.
Not as indirect as you would think ;)
Apperantly, the Dictionary of Modern Sociology gives this definition:
"The total, generally organized way of life, including values, norms, institutions, and artifacts, that is passed on from generation to generation by learning alone"
And well, politics definatly falls under that banner.
Got it from here: http://courses.ed.asu.edu/margolis/spf301/definitions_of_culture.html
May be an interesting read, regardless of what the topic is.

But I would call it some form of cultural "emperialism" of "introducing" there form of democracy in country's like Germany or Japan, because that suggests "This is the best way". Now it may be for themselfs, but it could work pretty damn shitty for other country's. A truly democratic solution, is to let the people decide what they want, not say what they should need.

"From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood tyrants and patriots."

Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately, I have to say "When in Rome....", alright it may be a draconian law, however, it is not worth the punishment just to sit down. Couldn't the young man invovled have done something else, such as enter the theatre late or leave it early (IIRC, that is what some Northern Irishmen did, they left the movie theatre just before the British National Anthem played)

Is that what you would say to Rosa Parks?

Yes, the comment by Call to Power is reasonable.

What ever happened to that aussie chick? the one that tried to smuggle drugs?

Thailand has some ridicolous laws, time for a revolution!

This isn't about the king, it's about the king being used to justify something that is wrong. I know I would feel pretty patronised myself if that was the way the powers that be treated me.

You are correct, it is not about the King. It is about someone who knew the law and made a choice to violate the law.

[/QUOTE]And again: just because in Saudi Arabia you don't have any contact with a woman before you marry her, should people who do anyways just shut up about being publically beaten or killed? "That's the way it is there" is not a reason to accept or tolerate something.[/QUOTE]

You have two choices in both cases. First, you can obey the law even if you don't like it. People do that every day. Secondly, you can work to change the law if you feel strongly about it but you don't flaunt the law. Work within the system to change the system.

:upyours:

It is shocking to read about such arcane laws and practices, even though one knows that it is common in third-world countries.

Even more shocking is to read of the "sub-humans" in this forum who actually support the law and its application. Human-rights are universal and yes we should forcefully impose them on the rest of the world. Likewise, those who support these barbaric acts should be deported.

I could enter into an argument using a more civilized tone and arguments, sure thing, but there are things so stupid that civilized arguments are not called for.

Human-rights are universal and yes we should forcefully impose them on the rest of the world.

1. Please give me YOUR definition of human rights.
2. For many years the US was criticized for wanting to "impose their value system on the rest of the world." So, what gives you the right to impose your value system on the rest of the world?

:upyours:

It is shocking to read about such arcane laws and practices, even though one knows that it is common in third-world countries.

Even more shocking is to read of the "sub-humans" in this forum who actually support the law and its application. Human-rights are universal and yes we should forcefully impose them on the rest of the world. Likewise, those who support these barbaric acts should be deported.

I could enter into an argument using a more civilized tone and arguments, sure thing, but there are things so stupid that civilized arguments are not called for.

I have a problem with the beginning of your rant. It can do without the title and the smiley.
Everything else, awesome.

And why would you be saying that?


Did you know that "white man's burden" was used to justify all sorts of conquests under the guise of "we're civilized and they're not" when all it really was was that they were different? I'm seeing that here. A bunch of arbitrary "It's TEH EVIL! SMASH!" claims really. And automatic assumption of the superiority of your culture.

White man's burden hasn't really gone away from the mentality of the Western world it seems. Maybe you personally may not want to invade them, but you certainly want them to conform to your standards.


Don't you think there are laws that are objectively evil and that overthrowing would be a good deed, or even a responsibility?


So far, Thai application of Lèse majesté are anything but evil. Harsh, yes, but not evil. What is evil anyway? Most people just define evil as "something I don't agree with."


From Holocaust over Apartheid to "you got raped, so now you're a whore and need to be stoned to death", there were and are many examples of such law.


I'd say a Godwin, but since it's not the Nazi party, I'll just put you under fail for tying the two together. How much do you know of Thailand? It's culture? How they use Lèse majesté? Not very I would imagine. No, I very much suspect it is just a flashpoint incident that is quite clear in its agenda, that being to stir up outrage, and little else.


You know quite well that I'm not after building an empire or forcing my views on anyone.

You may not be after empire building, but you are making arbitrary declarations of what is just or not without attempts at reasoning. Is that not "forcing your views on someone"?


The latter might have you wondering, but this dude is having views forced upon him. He didn't choose to have to follow these laws, no sane person would. By removing them, we're not imposing anything, we're removing an imposition.

Now tell me why this particular argument can't be used for say, drug abuse, or say, inciting a mob?


These laws aren't "part of their culture" either - there is no cultural justification for them. They're all purely political.

Ahh, now it is "not part of their culture". And the reasoning behind this statement? The reams of evidence that proves it is not something that developed into their society over generations and is but an arbitrary placement?

I thought not.


This is someone standing up to political oppression and now suffering for it. I find that problematic, and I'm amazed how many people don't.

All things considered, what constitutes political oppression often differs from social grouping to social grouping. You just happen to think yours is a universal standard.

I wonder what would happen if someone came along believing that yours was inferior to theirs, and had the political, economic and military might to force it onto you.

My deepest sympathies to you and your friend. However callous or apathetic many of these posts may be, do not forget that there are those who truly believe in freedom.

I used to be a member of Amnesty International at my high school. I haven't attended meetings in a while, but this sounds like the kind of thing they'd get involved in. If you really want the world's attention, you should try contacting them or a similar organization.

You should be careful though, not to provoke more negative consequences towards yourself or your friend, though I doubt you need to be told that.

1. Please give me YOUR definition of human rights.
2. For many years the US was criticized for wanting to "impose their value system on the rest of the world." So, what gives you the right to impose your value system on the rest of the world?

Yes, you are quite right! I may not have the right to impose anything on anybody more than Thailand has the right to impose human-rights violations on its citizens. Be that as it may, I insist on my right to react and act. In my opinion I have THAT right.

Your question of my definition of human-rights is a good one. I really do not know. Actually, I could give quite specific descriptions of the contents of international human rights conventions, but I cannot specify exactly what rights are so basic that one should force them upon a society. I felt this case was such a case; I realize it becomes an "I know it when I see it" argument but not all human emotions can be broken into abstract reasoning in the wink of a second. But if I should try: Factors to be taken into account is the severity of the sanction and its necessity. More than that I cannot say at this point.

I respect your own experience in Thailand and your own assimilation there as you described above. Hopefully you will respect that others cannot follow your example. Some people are made for grateness becoming martyrs and some succeed in their struggles against oppressors. What distinguishes Jesus, Martin Luther King or Rosa parks? They all are celebrated for their defiance even though their contemporaries might not have been convinced. Only the future knows which freedom-fighters will succeed, become famous (or infamous) or merely forgotten.

I must say I disagree strongly with your assertion that advocating liberty in a foreign country is a form of "the white man's burden." First, the democratic ideals practised in the west are not limited to the west. Democracy is practised around the world and people have fought and died for it on every continent north of Antarctica.

You say it is wrong to impose an arbitrary standard on other cultures, from which I take it you are one of those obsesively politically correct fools who treats every belief, however cruel or barbaric, as equally valid. The problem is good and evil, freedom and tyranny are not meerly arbitrary standards. There is something universal, or nearly, about the desire to be free. If we allow our selves to treat all ideas and practices as equally valid, we will end up in a state of intellectual anarchy. In short, if you try to agree with everything, you will end up with nothing, or more accurately, you will end with confusion and chaos. The problem is, anarchy lasts only as long as it takes for the strongest or most cunning to restore order on their terms. If we do not stand up for liberty, those who do wish to impose their far more opresive world view on others will have a clear field in which to do so.

You're a fool to argue as you do, for your restraint only furthers the very impirialism you seem to oppose.

I must say I disagree strongly with your assertion that advocating liberty in a foreign country is a form of "the white man's burden." First, the democratic ideals practised in the west are not limited to the west. Democracy is practised around the world and people have fought and died for it on every continent north of Antarctica.


The very basis of democracy can take many, many forms. They are not necessarily tied to liberties, and have varied in shape and form in even supposedly democratic western countries. A comparison between say, Germany and America would easily prove this statement as true.

Arguing that there is some sort of universal standard is merely a fools argument for a monoculture, monosocial world.


You say it is wrong to impose an arbitrary standard on other cultures, from which I take it you are one of those obsesively politically correct fools who treats every belief, however cruel or barbaric, as equally valid.

So far, no one has demonstrated why Thailand's lese Majaste is cruel or barbaric beyond "because I say so!"


The problem is good and evil, freedom and tyranny are not meerly arbitrary standards.

Are they? Good and evil are human constructs. They change according to whoever holds that view. To take an example, Tibet, and the responses of NSG in regards to it and China's occupation of it. Two very different camps, yet they see what they propose as better than the other.

Freedom and tyranny is merely the difference between how much constraint there is. There is no absolute freedom, just as there is no absolute tyranny. Because of that, there can be no universalist standard of freedom or tyranny.


There is something universal, or nearly, about the desire to be free.

And the evidence to support this statement is...? Also, it has to be of a certain standard of freedom that you prattle on about.


In short, if you try to agree with everything, you will end up with nothing, or more accurately, you will end with confusion and chaos.


And if you try to disagree with everything but one view, then you will end up with stagnation and decay.

And then it merely becomes a heap which upon the one who has the most might who makes his view universal, and punishes those who disagree.

The very thing you argue against. Congratulations.

Of course your right that their are many different democracies with varying levels of liberties. There is definitely room for different philosophies and opinions. Freedom of expression to some degree, however, is necessary in order to have any democracy.

Of course you might ask, why do we want democracy? Because democracy best enables people to debate matters of importance openly, come to a consensus, and pursue their own destiny, rather than being used mearly to further the interests of one or a few. Without the protection of freedom of expression, a small minority will impose their views on the rest of us, exactly what you seem to be opposing. I don't think our goals are necessarily at odds here. Just the methods we advocate.

No one should be punished for failing to respect royalty. This is an inherently undemocratic ideal, and on this ground there is not room for negotiation, though of course you have the right to disagree. Simply saying that I will not negotiate with my belief in fundamental rights does not make me the close-minded opressor who will listen to no opinion but my own. At least I stand for something.

Huh? ok, if it wern't for several things, I would be in full agreement with you.

ok, if one is KNOWINGLY breaking the law, and your articles do state that he knows about such laws, why would he then go to the police where the police would then learn of him breaking the law?

I would've blogged it and cast it into the wide world of the net.

but what he did was like a bank robber fleeing the bank and get's mugged. he then goes to report the mugging to the police.

How, exactly, is he in any way shape or form "like a bank robber"? Was Rosa Parks "like a bank robber"?

So far, no one has demonstrated why Thailand's lese Majaste is cruel or barbaric beyond "because I say so!"


How about the fact that he got a fifteen year jail sentence for an act that harmed no one?

from now one, when my ancient and feeble cat urinates on the bathroom floor... as she does serveral times a day... i'm going to tell her she is a stinky rama 9... thialand hasn't had a decent king since yul brynner died... the rama 4s were a much better model.

okay the 5s weren't to bad either... but that's as far as i go

Of course your right that their are many different democracies with varying levels of liberties. There is definitely room for different philosophies and opinions.


So you say, but your earlier words do not indicate as much. Instead, they imply a certain level of stifling.


Freedom of expression to some degree, however, is necessary in order to have any democracy.

To some degree. So you admit that there are limits.


Of course you might ask, why do we want democracy? Because democracy best enables people to debate matters of importance openly, come to a consensus, and pursue their own destiny, rather than being used mearly to further the interests of one or a few.

Pfft. The idealists version of democracy. It is rarely anything even remotely resembling that. Why do I say that? Because I see so very few actual democracies, even in the Western world. All I see are kleptocracies.

Democracy is merely another form of governance. Different looks, same insides.


No one should be punished for failing to respect royalty. This is an inherently undemocratic ideal, and on this ground there is not room for negotiation, though of course you have the right to disagree.

Then this argument is moot.


Simply saying that I will not negotiate with my belief in fundamental rights does not make me the close-minded opressor who will listen to no opinion but my own. At least I stand for something.

And people who stand for something often do so on the corpses of those who had a different idea.

How about the fact that he got a fifteen year jail sentence for an act that harmed no one?

Soft drugs insofar as I know, harm no one more than the average cigarette. Yet there are harsh laws in regards to drug use.

Victimless crimes in general usually punish the perpetrator with jail terms. And there are laws about that in almost every country in the world. I have stated that the laws are harsh, but unless you are saying jail in itself is cruel and barbaric, Thailand's lese majaste is simply not. Do try again.

Apperantly, the Dictionary of Modern Sociology gives this definition:
"The total, generally organized way of life, including values, norms, institutions, and artifacts, that is passed on from generation to generation by learning alone"
And well, politics definatly falls under that banner.
I suppose you then have to ask what the definition of politics is. Both my take and yours are probably linked together, but when I mean "the way violence is handled in interpersonal relations", then with that comes a certain set of rules on the use of violence that apply regardless of culture.

It's sorta like this

Person A---------------->Relations<-------------Person B
-norms---------------------^--------------------norms
-values-------------------Politics-----------------values

Practical, real-life politics, while perhaps something influenced by culture (or part of it, depending on the definition) is still an outside influence on how people would normally relate with each other. And that state of normalcy, ie what people actually think and want for themselves, is what I consider culture. That's why I think "ministries of culture", "national culture", "culture conflict" and all those sorts of terms are stupid.

A truly democratic solution, is to let the people decide what they want, not say what they should need.
It's curious you should say that, because that first requires that people get to decide what they want. It's democracy, it's one person, one vote. The North Koreans presumably didn't decide to live in an Orwell-novel, so you really wouldn't claim that being herded away into gulags just happens to be North Korean culture.

So somewhere you do commit to a way of organising things that is the best for everyone. And I put it to you that the reason is that regardless of culture, ethnicity, nationality or anything else there are basic characteristics that all humans share, and that from those it is quite possible to develop universal rules of conduct with regards to politics and freedom.

What ever happened to that aussie chick? the one that tried to smuggle drugs?
She's sitting in an Indonesian jail.

You are correct, it is not about the King. It is about someone who knew the law and made a choice to violate the law.
I'm not talking about the punishment so much as I am talking about the law itself. Whether he gets 15 years, the death penalty or a 10 baht fine isn't really important.

You have two choices in both cases. First, you can obey the law even if you don't like it. People do that every day. Secondly, you can work to change the law if you feel strongly about it but you don't flaunt the law. Work within the system to change the system.
And what if the majority of Thais actually want a law like this? Does it make it any less wrong? Does it mean that someone who notices but is outvoted should just shut up? And if yes, how far can you extend the same reasoning until you'd start wondering?

Did you know that "white man's burden" was used to justify all sorts of conquests under the guise of "we're civilized and they're not" when all it really was was that they were different? I'm seeing that here. A bunch of arbitrary "It's TEH EVIL! SMASH!" claims really. And automatic assumption of the superiority of your culture.
I'm not claiming anything about anyone's culture. I'm claiming that there are some things that any culture doesn't justify and some laws that are universally unjust.

So far, Thai application of Lèse majesté are anything but evil. Harsh, yes, but not evil. What is evil anyway? Most people just define evil as "something I don't agree with."
It's a fancy way of expressing the notion that this law is fundamentally and universally unjust in that it violates fundamental and universal rules of what constitutes proper government.

I'd say a Godwin, but since it's not the Nazi party, I'll just put you under fail for tying the two together.
It's an example. You don't have to go out of your way to assume that I'm not aware of the words I write - what you should have a look at is the underlying question: are there laws that are objectively evil, regardless of where they're applied? If you answer "yes" to that with regards to the Holocaust, then we have established a principle.

And from there all that needs to be done is shown that the Thai law (both in what it says and in how it is applied, since the two belong together) violates the universal standards of what is allowed in terms of law-making.

How much do you know of Thailand? It's culture? How they use Lèse majesté? Not very I would imagine. No, I very much suspect it is just a flashpoint incident that is quite clear in its agenda, that being to stir up outrage, and little else.
Given the way the king has featured in past political episodes, I've actually been exposed to it. Not to mention the multitude of Thais who seem to go to my university or generally live in my area.

You may not be after empire building, but you are making arbitrary declarations of what is just or not without attempts at reasoning. Is that not "forcing your views on someone"?
The reasoning should be pretty obvious. By not standing up, he didn't hurt anyone. He didn't commit a social act at all, in that his actions didn't impact anyone in an objective way. In short, he never entered the social sphere in this particular matter, and it is therefore invalid for something that is supposed to regulate the social sphere to reach beyond its limits to punish him.

Now tell me why this particular argument can't be used for say, drug abuse, or say, inciting a mob?
Drug abuse is a private choice. Again, no entering the public sphere (other than the act of purchasing and owning it, I suppose, in which normal laws of property would presumably apply).

I'm not sure what you mean by inciting a mob. I'd say that incitement shouldn't be a crime, because simply by being incited to do X I don't give up the responsibility for my actions. But before I can answer any of that properly, I need to know what you mean.

I thought not.
My treatment of politics and culture is covered above.

All things considered, what constitutes political oppression often differs from social grouping to social grouping. You just happen to think yours is a universal standard.

I wonder what would happen if someone came along believing that yours was inferior to theirs, and had the political, economic and military might to force it onto you.
What standard would that be? My standard is pretty clear: you don't enter the social sphere, no social norm, whether legal or social, applies to you. That's a negative statement, it's the lack of prescription. That is what makes it universal, because it can apply for any culture and be core optimal (meaning that there is no group or individual that would be better off by leaving such a system). You want to stand up at a picture of the king - fine, nobody's stopping you. Someone else doesn't - also fine. The two don't want to talk to each other - also fine.

There is no prescription to do anything a particular way. What is truly cultural will be done because people do it voluntarily. What is simply due to force will disappear, and that will show that it had nothing to do with culture.

To those who have the "go with the flow" viewpoint: Should Martin Luthor King Jr. have kept him mouth shut and not violated what he thought were unjust laws? Should Rosa Parks just got up and moved to the back of the bus? Should the American colonists just shut up about the virtues of democracy and fairness and just submit unconditionally to King George III? Should those who ran the underground railroad just give up and let the slaves be whipped for working too slow and executed for learning how to read?

All of these people have one thing in common. They all broke laws they thought were completely unfair and unnecesary. They risked their well-being for a cause they deeply believed in. Don't compare this to "freedom fighters" because there's a huge difference between not standing up/risking your life to free a people who are being enslaved and blowing up a market place full of people who aren't, in any way, shape, or form, involved in the problem being violently protested.

Arrested for not standing up? Fight the good fight in a way that doesn't distract attention away from the problem you are protesting. That's the thing about freedom fighters. People don't see the oppression you are opposing or the unfair law you are protesting. Blow up a market place and all people will see are charred bodies. Refuse to obey a useless and unfair law? Break that law. It's a long-standing and outstanding tradition.

I'm not claiming anything about anyone's culture. I'm claiming that there are some things that any culture doesn't justify and some laws that are universally unjust.

Generally, laws that are long standing and generally supported by the populace can be considered to be part of the culture. I would be very much surprised if you can find any significant resentment of lese majaste among the Thai people. As a general whole, they love the king, and seem to be united in their opinions about the law. Do you remember what happened the last time a youtube video was released insulting the Thai king?

I suppose you are going to say that it is still unjust somehow.


It's a fancy way of expressing the notion that this law is fundamentally and universally unjust in that it violates fundamental and universal rules of what constitutes proper government.

A proper government by your standards you mean. Perhaps you will find that the Thai people do not agree to your standards. And then what? They are now an "improper" people?


It's an example.


Overused, and overdone.


You don't have to go out of your way to assume that I'm not aware of the words I write - what you should have a look at is the underlying question: are there laws that are objectively evil, regardless of where they're applied?


Laws without context are meaningless. If you want to ignore context, any law can be made to look "evil".


If you answer "yes" to that with regards to the Holocaust, then we have established a principle.

Too bad for you I do not operate under the binary principle that you appear to be following.


Given the way the king has featured in past political episodes, I've actually been exposed to it. Not to mention the multitude of Thais who seem to go to my university or generally live in my area.


And of course you will elucidate upon this now won't you?


The reasoning should be pretty obvious. By not standing up, he didn't hurt anyone. He didn't commit a social act at all, in that his actions didn't impact anyone in an objective way. In short, he never entered the social sphere in this particular matter, and it is therefore invalid for something that is supposed to regulate the social sphere to reach beyond its limits to punish him.

Lack of social act has been determined to be a breach of law before. Mostly, they deal with registry paperwork and income tax.


Drug abuse is a private choice. Again, no entering the public sphere (other than the act of purchasing and owning it, I suppose, in which normal laws of property would presumably apply).

Yet most countries consider it a crime, even many of your so-called "Proper" governments.


I'm not sure what you mean by inciting a mob. I'd say that incitement shouldn't be a crime, because simply by being incited to do X I don't give up the responsibility for my actions. But before I can answer any of that properly, I need to know what you mean.


Firebrands, you know the sort, those who stir up a mob to commit criminal acts.


What standard would that be?


Does it really matter? All it takes is one who holds that their views are superior and should be universal and have the might to enforce it.


My standard is pretty clear: you don't enter the social sphere, no social norm, whether legal or social, applies to you.

This person, by the reports here, entered the social sphere by entering a public movie theater. The rules and regulations of society applied to him.


There is no prescription to do anything a particular way. What is truly cultural will be done because people do it voluntarily. What is simply due to force will disappear, and that will show that it had nothing to do with culture.

So how do you account for the non-minority Thai people who do support lese masjaste then hmm?

Soft drugs insofar as I know, harm no one more than the average cigarette. Yet there are harsh laws in regards to drug use.

Victimless crimes in general usually punish the perpetrator with jail terms. And there are laws about that in almost every country in the world. I have stated that the laws are harsh, but unless you are saying jail in itself is cruel and barbaric, Thailand's lese majaste is simply not. Do try again.

A: Punishment that is simply beyond any semblance of reason for the "offense" (for example 20 years for jaywalking, any punishment at all for "one of those darkies" not getting to the back of the bus, or as in this case showing disrespect to the king) is cruel and barbaric.

B: I understand that jail in Thailand is cruel and barbaric in ways that American jails are not.

Generally, laws that are long standing and generally supported by the populace can be considered to be part of the culture.
And that makes them right? I think I've made it plenty clear enough by now that I don't take culture, tradition, ease of compliance, nature of those who comply and who don't, and indeed any sort of context to be significant determinants of the justness of a law.

I suppose you are going to say that it is still unjust somehow.
I am saying that it's irrelevant. Completely and utterly. Everyone in Thailand but this one guy can be in favour, and it would still be unjust to impose it upon him, because his refusal to submit does not cause any harm whatsoever and the rest of society does not require his compliance to function or follow the law themselves.

As a rule of behaviour or a social norm, I can stand here and say it's stupid. But I would have no grounds other than my personal preference, and what I say should not be taken to be binding in any way.

As a law, that is as a rule that violating will bring violent retribution, that changes because by declaring this social norm law, you have declared that it must apply to everyone. It is thus no longer a matter of personal opinion...or rather, it has become the enforcement of one person's opinion on another by means of force. Note that not having the law would not be - it would be the absence of enforcement either way.

A proper government by your standards you mean. Perhaps you will find that the Thai people do not agree to your standards. And then what? They are now an "improper" people?
You're beating a strawman. The idea I'm putting forward is rooted in the universality of certain rules. As such, they can't possibly be "my" standards any more than they are yours or the Thai kings. They are, irrespective of who is looking at them.

One such principle is explained in one of the links in my signature:
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

It is universal because it allows any form of self-expression that is compatible with the continued existence of humanity, in any culture, in any form of economy and in any time throughout history. People, communities and governments often add other stuff on top of these basic rules - and as long as everyone agrees, that's not a problem. It becomes a problem when these rules are violated, because nobody can claim any sort of justification for it. And if there is no possible way to make an argument that something that produces harm is actually a good thing, then I don't know what else to call it but "evil".

Laws without context are meaningless. If you want to ignore context, any law can be made to look "evil".
Overused and overdone it might be, but it remains quite underanswered. So what context makes it okay to ferry people into gas chambers?

Too bad for you I do not operate under the binary principle that you appear to be following.
Now you're acting like a bad guy in "Atlas Shrugged". Either something is right or it is wrong. It's necessarily a binary question, it's not something that can contain a shade of grey. If it's just a little bit wrong, then it's not right.

And of course you will elucidate upon this now won't you?
Do I have to? You make the impression that you know quite well what the Thais think about their king.

Lack of social act has been determined to be a breach of law before. Mostly, they deal with registry paperwork and income tax.
Except that the act starts prior to income tax, with the holding of property. Considering that most property is scarce in some way, the argument can be made that by owning something I am impacting the rest of society in some way, and some interaction with the rest of society will be the result. Exactly what form that interaction then takes of course depends on your idea of property rights.

But even that is really irrelevant. What is determined as breach of law hardly tells us something about the true state of affairs. Might doesn't make right, as they say.

Yet most countries consider it a crime, even many of your so-called "Proper" governments.
My governments? Where did I give the impression that I have a government I support?

Seriously, go back and have a look. I have not once approached this law with anything but an objective standard of right and wrong that doesn't depend on where either of us live or who happens to be the idiot in charge at the moment. As an aside, there is not a single government on earth at this point that is restricted to only its proper functions, and indeed everyone of them is violating them in some way.

It's just that some are rather worse than others.

Firebrands, you know the sort, those who stir up a mob to commit criminal acts.
Well, I'd stick to what I said. It doesn't matter who gave me the idea, it's still me as a human being who chooses whether or not (and how) to act upon it. The only exception might be if someone conned me into doing act X - then it would be a "reasonable person" test to determine whether I should have known better and the liar would be held responsible to some degree.

Does it really matter? All it takes is one who holds that their views are superior and should be universal and have the might to enforce it.
Having read this far, you may now have understood what my answer to such a claim would be: No.

They can have all the power in the world, but that wouldn't make their claim true or me wrong for opposing it.

This person, by the reports here, entered the social sphere by entering a public movie theater. The rules and regulations of society applied to him.
By the same token a gay person is being gay in a public movie theatre. Simple presence is not enough, there is no right not to be offended. He didn't do anything to anyone. His actions only concerned his own body, namely whether or not to get up from his seat. His decision had no impact on anyone else.

So how do you account for the non-minority Thai people who do support lese masjaste then hmm?
I don't have to. They can refuse to do anything to offend the kind all they want and be happy with it. What they cannot rightfully do is force people who don't feel the same way to act as though they do. How many of them there are or what their culture they claim allegiance to is, as I've said repeatedly, not relevant to this.

And that makes them right? I think I've made it plenty clear enough by now that I don't take culture, tradition, ease of compliance, nature of those who comply and who don't, and indeed any sort of context to be significant determinants of the justness of a law.


And what makes you right then hmm?


I am saying that it's irrelevant. Completely and utterly. Everyone in Thailand but this one guy can be in favour, and it would still be unjust to impose it upon him, because his refusal to submit does not cause any harm whatsoever and the rest of society does not require his compliance to function or follow the law themselves.

Soft drug use and possession, if we are to believe the proponents, are victimless acts. Yet most countries have laws against them, and lengthy jail terms, if not harsher penalties.

Ultimately though, it is society that defines law, particularly, structured society. Of course this only usually applies in places where rule by fiat is either not present, or at least not blatantly used. Neither of those conditions are fulfilled in Thailand.


As a rule of behaviour or a social norm, I can stand here and say it's stupid. But I would have no grounds other than my personal preference, and what I say should not be taken to be binding in any way.

I am glad that at least you have conceded on this. You do not believe that it is fair or just, that is your entitlement. But likewise, the Thai people are entitled to believe otherwise, and as the Thai people, have a greater concern over their laws than you, or I.


As a law, that is as a rule that violating will bring violent retribution, that changes because by declaring this social norm law, you have declared that it must apply to everyone.

Violent retribution? I see no corporal punishment being meted out as part of the sentence.


It is thus no longer a matter of personal opinion...or rather, it has become the enforcement of one person's opinion on another by means of force. Note that not having the law would not be - it would be the absence of enforcement either way.

Law ultimately, is the enforcement of an opinion, with a general guideline being towards creating ordered society. Those prerequisites for ordered society differ from culture to culture, and as such, are made into law. Laws do not magically pop out of thin air in a book labeled "universal laws of human rights."

They are the product of their environment and their crafters.


You're beating a strawman. The idea I'm putting forward is rooted in the universality of certain rules. As such, they can't possibly be "my" standards any more than they are yours or the Thai kings. They are, irrespective of who is looking at them.

And I am saying that the claim that it is universal is nothing more than a thinly veiled way of thinking that stems from the "white man's burden" mentality. You may not see it that way, perhaps even castigate such a way of thinking. But the fact remains that you are very much in the same guidelines. The automatic assumption that your values are universal and must be implemented as such.

Think of this from a different perspective. Imagine if extraterrestrials showed up one day proclaiming that the "Way of Ni" is superior to all Earth laws and governance and that they should take it up because they are primitive barbarians and should take it up nevertheless and be grateful for their benevolence even though everything seen inside goes against deeply ingrained expectations. How would you, and most of the Earth population, feel about that?


It is universal because it allows any form of self-expression that is compatible with the continued existence of humanity, in any culture, in any form of economy and in any time throughout history. People, communities and governments often add other stuff on top of these basic rules - and as long as everyone agrees, that's not a problem.

Then clearly, there are problems with all laws, as for every single one in existence, I have no doubt that I can find someone who does not agree with at least one aspect of it.

As you have said.


I am saying that it's irrelevant. Completely and utterly. Everyone in Thailand but this one guy can be in favour, and it would still be unjust to impose it upon him

Would suggest that even a single person dissenting would make the law problematic.


It becomes a problem when these rules are violated, because nobody can claim any sort of justification for it.

Nobody but the makers of the law and its proponents of course, something you are clearly leaving out of your factors.


And if there is no possible way to make an argument that something that produces harm is actually a good thing, then I don't know what else to call it but "evil".

Because your mindset rejects it. You have been raised in a certain culture, with certain expectations. No matter how much experience you gain, or how worldly you become, you simply cannot put aside those ingrained expectations. Some feel it more, some feel it less, but all have it.They are a part of your personality. As such, it would reject something that is alien to it.

If I were to mangle a comparison, it would be like using abstract math to analyze Hamlet's literary qualities.


Overused and overdone it might be, but it remains quite underanswered. So what context makes it okay to ferry people into gas chambers?

A number of countries have the death penalty I believe, and employ the gas chambers in their execution.


Now you're acting like a bad guy in "Atlas Shrugged".


I will take that as a compliment. The protagonists of Atlas Shrugged struck me as the sort of people who were simply incapable of being competitive. I fear however, that I lack a waxed mustache to twirl while I cackle gloatingly.


Either something is right or it is wrong. It's necessarily a binary question, it's not something that can contain a shade of grey. If it's just a little bit wrong, then it's not right.

It's right, or it's wrong. You are with me, or you are against me. It is just, or it is unjust. Black or white.

There are no absolutes in the realms of philosophical discourse of what is, and is not just. Drawing a line and claiming an absolute, is little more than proclaiming the superiority of one's position, with nothing to back it up than "I say so."


Do I have to? You make the impression that you know quite well what the Thais think about their king.


Having observed them for quite some time, as well as regularly liaising with them on a face to face basis, of which can be considered anecdotal and thus discounted, I could say so. But I would say, as much as I can be reasonably expected to.


Except that the act starts prior to income tax, with the holding of property. Considering that most property is scarce in some way, the argument can be made that by owning something I am impacting the rest of society in some way, and some interaction with the rest of society will be the result. Exactly what form that interaction then takes of course depends on your idea of property rights.

So you DO admit to shades of gray. Or at least differing viewpoints.


But even that is really irrelevant. What is determined as breach of law hardly tells us something about the true state of affairs. Might doesn't make right, as they say.

And does philosophy on matters of what is just say that Neu Leonstein is right? Or does he alone say that he is?


My governments? Where did I give the impression that I have a government I support?

Seriously, go back and have a look. I have not once approached this law with anything but an objective standard of right and wrong that doesn't depend on where either of us live or who happens to be the idiot in charge at the moment. As an aside, there is not a single government on earth at this point that is restricted to only its proper functions, and indeed everyone of them is violating them in some way.

It's just that some are rather worse than others.


So then you would agree with my earlier assessment of your position, expanded from but one peoples to all peoples. There are no just governments.


Well, I'd stick to what I said. It doesn't matter who gave me the idea, it's still me as a human being who chooses whether or not (and how) to act upon it. The only exception might be if someone conned me into doing act X - then it would be a "reasonable person" test to determine whether I should have known better and the liar would be held responsible to some degree.


Curious, so you would give the firebrand free pass, so long as there was no duping?


Having read this far, you may now have understood what my answer to such a claim would be: No.

They can have all the power in the world, but that wouldn't make their claim true or me wrong for opposing it.

Then logically, you hold that your views are superior to all others then.


By the same token a gay person is being gay in a public movie theatre.


Being gay?


Simple presence is not enough, there is no right not to be offended. He didn't do anything to anyone. His actions only concerned his own body, namely whether or not to get up from his seat. His decision had no impact on anyone else.

Using this set of conditions, applied to other situations, creates an interesting variety of ethical dilemmas. Generally, they fall under obstruction of services.


I don't have to. They can refuse to do anything to offend the kind all they want and be happy with it. What they cannot rightfully do is force people who don't feel the same way to act as though they do. How many of them there are or what their culture they claim allegiance to is, as I've said repeatedly, not relevant to this.

I do believe I have addressed this in various forms above.

This isn't, he shouldn't be charged and the Thai justice system can go and get stuffed.

Unfortunately, it seems this person is the one who suffers, not the Thai justice system.

[regarding Rosa Parks]yes. she broke the law because she couldn't be bothered

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9433715
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0bio-1
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=7098

Au contraire -- she knew exactly what she was doing. She and her husband were both members of the NAACP and working towards civil rights, and she had been privy to a conversation about a bus protest.

How can people say he had this coming. They're almost certainly Americans. The Revolutionaries were breaking the law, but you got a democratic ( for a while, at least) country out of that. This is an evil law, like something out of 1984.

ok, that just f*cking sucks, and i don't care if it s against ns rules 2 swear. just because you don't believe in "les majeste" doesn't mean someone can almost kill you about it. i shudder to think what would have happened if it had been a woman. they could have raped her, and gotten away with it. i don't care what they say, dude, you should totally be able to say what you want about their piggish and disgusting "rule"! they probably tell people it's just that someone who doesn't like the king gets assaulted. they'd go "well, anyone who does not respect his majesty is a pig". that's what they do in CHina, only they say it about the entire government.:headbang::(:eek:. glad i'm in a good country.

I suppose you then have to ask what the definition of politics is. Both my take and yours are probably linked together, but when I mean "the way violence is handled in interpersonal relations", then with that comes a certain set of rules on the use of violence that apply regardless of culture.

It's sorta like this

Person A---------------->Relations<-------------Person B
-norms---------------------^--------------------norms
-values-------------------Politics-----------------values

Practical, real-life politics, while perhaps something influenced by culture (or part of it, depending on the definition) is still an outside influence on how people would normally relate with each other. And that state of normalcy, ie what people actually think and want for themselves, is what I consider culture. That's why I think "ministries of culture", "national culture", "culture conflict" and all those sorts of terms are stupid.
That certain set of rules IS culture ;) "Culture" is simply the certain customs and rules a group of animals have. "Politics" is simply the process between groups of animals to decide who gets what. That way, the way politics is happening in a group is a part of that group's culture. Besides, nothing personal, but I think the sociological definitions have a bit more weight then yours ;)
It's curious you should say that, because that first requires that people get to decide what they want. It's democracy, it's one person, one vote. The North Koreans presumably didn't decide to live in an Orwell-novel, so you really wouldn't claim that being herded away into gulags just happens to be North Korean culture.
No, that's not democracy, that's a fórm of democracy. Democracy means "rule by the people". One person one vote is a form of democracy, not democracy by itself.
And no ofcourse I won't say the latter, what I would say is that communism is a part of the current North Korean culture, wich isn't that wierd to say I think. And no they didn't decide to probably, that's why it's not democratic.
So somewhere you do commit to a way of organising things that is the best for everyone. And I put it to you that the reason is that regardless of culture, ethnicity, nationality or anything else there are basic characteristics that all humans share, and that from those it is quite possible to develop universal rules of conduct with regards to politics and freedom.
Those basic characteristics ARE culture, it's all culture. But, how do you know that all humans share some basic characteristics? And wich characteristics do you mean then?

...glad i'm in a good country.

It's definitely things like this that make you glad to be where you live right now (Im in the USA), and that you shouldn't take your freedom for granted. I certainly hope that this situation is resolved, and the said person doesn't get the jail time...

How can people say he had this coming. They're almost certainly Americans.

How wonderful for you to show your prejudices. Actually, there were Aussies, Malaysians, New Zealanders and Brits and USers posting for the law as well.

Against were literally twice as many Americans as were for it, and also Aussies, Spaniards, Poles, Netherlanders, Norwegians, Iranians, and Canadians.

But please, don't let that get in the way of your broad generalizations.

Lex malla, lex nulla

It definitely takes some major guts and moral conviction to stand against that which is powerful yet blatantly wrong, and often, going with the flow seems to be the prudent course of action. Unfortunately, prudence often perpetuates that which is wrong.

In that is the irony of prudence relating to bad law. Bad law is often immoral...immorality must be opposed by those of moral virtue. Prudence is then immoral. But then again, survival of self is the root of morality.

I guess that is where those of us which rise above the survival of self and family, in order to stand against wrong simply because it is the right course of action, become great icons of morality unto us all. Most of us have not risen upon the ladder of morality to that level.

Imagine what we would have if everyone could rise above the self?

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
You're beating a strawman. The idea I'm putting forward is rooted in the universality of certain rules. As such, they can't possibly be "my" standards any more than they are yours or the Thai kings. They are, irrespective of who is looking at them.

And I am saying that the claim that it is universal is nothing more than a thinly veiled way of thinking that stems from the "white man's burden" mentality. You may not see it that way, perhaps even castigate such a way of thinking. But the fact remains that you are very much in the same guidelines. The automatic assumption that your values are universal and must be implemented as such.


I have to agree with NAS on this. There is no "universal" value system. Every culture and every nation has it's own take on things, even within "east" and "west" there are huge differences between what's considered normal and what isn't. Pretending there is ultimately comes down to the "I'M RIGHT, YOURE WRONG!!!" philosophy, especially since I have never seen anyone who makes a case for "universal" values ever claim the values of a system different to their own was the "universal" one.

I disagree however that this is the "white man's burden". Many cultures can have an isolationist view that their way is the best and that different cultures are "barbaric".

And what makes you right then hmm?
The fact that I don't use any form of cultural, historical or otherwise non-universal justification for what I'm saying.

Soft drug use and possession, if we are to believe the proponents, are victimless acts. Yet most countries have laws against them, and lengthy jail terms, if not harsher penalties.
And that's wrong too. And when I feel the need to use illegal drugs, then I do it and the law can get stuffed. I feel no shame for doing that, since there is no obligation to follow a law that is unjust.

I am glad that at least you have conceded on this. You do not believe that it is fair or just, that is your entitlement. But likewise, the Thai people are entitled to believe otherwise, and as the Thai people, have a greater concern over their laws than you, or I.
Thai people can think what they want. What you have to understand is that just because their victim also happens to be a Thai citizen does not give them the right to force their opinions on him by force.

Violent retribution? I see no corporal punishment being meted out as part of the sentence.
He is being captured and sent to jail. If he resists, he will be hurt or killed. That's violence, no matter which way you look at it.

Law ultimately, is the enforcement of an opinion, with a general guideline being towards creating ordered society. Those prerequisites for ordered society differ from culture to culture, and as such, are made into law. Laws do not magically pop out of thin air in a book labeled "universal laws of human rights."
So if we made a society in which murder wasn't illegal, and people started killing each other, that would be fine?

They are the product of their environment and their crafters.
Yes. But the standards they have to fulfill are not.

And I am saying that the claim that it is universal is nothing more than a thinly veiled way of thinking that stems from the "white man's burden" mentality. You may not see it that way, perhaps even castigate such a way of thinking. But the fact remains that you are very much in the same guidelines. The automatic assumption that your values are universal and must be implemented as such.
It is not an automatic assumption and they are not values. I have gone over this several times now. It is the result of looking at the characteristics that all humans have in common, regardless of culture, and realising that these characteristics directly lead to a certain minimal code of law. All humans require a law that stops others from shooting them in the middle of the road. It doesn't matter whether I'm from Thailand, Iran or Australia, if there is a risk that I get shot at any point, that has precisely the same implications for my life and for society in general.

How would you, and most of the Earth population, feel about that?
It's still a strawman. Either the "Way of Ni" is strictly negative, ie the enforcement of freedom from the things like murder, or it is a violation of the basic requirements for human life. What the aliens say about it is irrelevant, as is their power to enforce whatever they decide is law.

This whole thing is not me enforcing something. It's me pointing something out that already exists, independently of my observation by virtue of the fact that Thai people are humans. There is nothing subjective or arbitrary about a right not to get attacked or locked up without actually having done or having planned to do any harm.

Would suggest that even a single person dissenting would make the law problematic.
Indeed. Hence why I'm not a big fan of legislatures...they tend to add more laws than they destroy, and we basically have to assume that in all probability a new law is a bad thing.

Nobody but the makers of the law and its proponents of course, something you are clearly leaving out of your factors.
So they can come up with an objectively true reason why not standing up to a picture of the king should result in 15 years jail time? Or would all their arguments just boil down to some version of "because I feel that way", "because that's tradition" or "because I can"?

I'm leaving them out, just as I am leaving religion out. They are subjective opinions and bear no relevance to questions of law, right and wrong.

Because your mindset rejects it. You have been raised in a certain culture, with certain expectations. No matter how much experience you gain, or how worldly you become, you simply cannot put aside those ingrained expectations. Some feel it more, some feel it less, but all have it.They are a part of your personality. As such, it would reject something that is alien to it.
Yes, I have been educated not to expect or accept to be shot at any point in time. It must be different in Thailand.

Would you please stop talking about these ideas in terms of the person who is bringing them forward? It's an ad hominem argument. Even if everything I said was only because of my culture, even that would still not be enough to conclude that it doesn't hold true universally.

A number of countries have the death penalty I believe, and employ the gas chambers in their execution.
And that's right and proper then?

Not that you are actually answering the question. I was talking about the Holocaust, ie a law that is used to commit genocide. The method or its similarities to random other events in world history isn't important.

There are no absolutes in the realms of philosophical discourse of what is, and is not just. Drawing a line and claiming an absolute, is little more than proclaiming the superiority of one's position, with nothing to back it up than "I say so."
You do realise that this means that no morality exists, right? Even culture is no defence against it, because as we now know there are Thais who don't want to stand up for the king. Are they no longer Thai? No, they still are.

But the things we call "culture" don't apply universally and in the same way to every member of them. They're generalisations, which means that the prescriptions that come from culture are also just generalisations. And that in turn means that there is no difference between enforcing a Thai law on this dude and enforcing the same law on some American dude. Neither are part of the culture that says such a law is necessary.

So you DO admit to shades of gray. Or at least differing viewpoints.
I acknowledge that they exist. I don't think they're valid, but as of yet I haven't made an argument good enough to prove them wrong. But that's not the point I was making.

And does philosophy on matters of what is just say that Neu Leonstein is right? Or does he alone say that he is?
No, the fact that we are human beings tells us what is and isn't right. Usually it actually requires more thinking to overlook this than to acknowledge it.

So then you would agree with my earlier assessment of your position, expanded from but one peoples to all peoples. There are no just governments.
There is the possibility of a just government, but it doesn't exist right now. Do with that what you will.

Curious, so you would give the firebrand free pass, so long as there was no duping?
Yep.

Then logically, you hold that your views are superior to all others then.
No, I hold that things are true or false regardless of who says them.

Being gay?
It causes quite a lot of offense to some people, just like not standing up during this ad did. In neither case is any actual harm done, but the mere presence of a dissenting view causes enough distress to make people call for laws to make it go away.

Using this set of conditions, applied to other situations, creates an interesting variety of ethical dilemmas. Generally, they fall under obstruction of services.
Any particular ideas?

That certain set of rules IS culture ;)
Politics involves violence. Culture doesn't have to. So therefore politics is a very specific subset of it, one that can easily be taken out and viewed seperately. We can all think we should pay respect to the king, and that would be culture. But when we start talking about hurting someone if they don't, then that's politics - influenced by culture, certainly, but not indivisible from it. It would be quite possible to pay respect to the king without forcing others to.

Besides, nothing personal, but I think the sociological definitions have a bit more weight then yours ;)
Meh, sociologists don't exactly come across as learned individuals.

No, that's not democracy, that's a fórm of democracy. Democracy means "rule by the people". One person one vote is a form of democracy, not democracy by itself.
So let me ask you: is Bhutan's monarchy a democracy (let's pretend they didn't just have elections, it's about an absolute monarch who is much supported by the people)?

And if there was one man in Bhutan who didn't think the king is great - would it still be a democracy then? Would the switch-over point be as soon as 50% of people didn't think he was great?

And isn't that "one person-one vote"?

Those basic characteristics ARE culture, it's all culture. But, how do you know that all humans share some basic characteristics? And wich characteristics do you mean then?
Culture involves the word "shared". The fact that humans survive by using their brains to make sense of the world and then change it to suit their needs for example doesn't require two people or any form of social interaction. A single person alone on earth would still do the same thing.

Pretending there is ultimately comes down to the "I'M RIGHT, YOURE WRONG!!!" philosophy, especially since I have never seen anyone who makes a case for "universal" values ever claim the values of a system different to their own was the "universal" one.
Look, you guys can claim this as much as you want, but it doesn't get any more true because of it. It does not come down to "I'm right, you're wrong", because neither you nor I have any relevance here.

The few rules that are universal can be discovered. It's just that few people are then happy with them, because the thought of not being able to control what other people do with their time on earth requires them to spend more time thinking about themselves. And for many people, that's a scary thought. So throughout all of history ideologies that allow the enforcement of rules of behaviour (or, even better, interpretations thereof) on others have been very popular.

And if someone realises that there is a universal set of correct laws, but then pushes for a different set, that would make them a hipocryt.

I haven't read every page of this thread, but here's my suggestion:

Write to local embassies talking about the problem IN DETAIL. Make sure to write to the American Embassy in Thailand along with other Western nations. I just know the American ambassador to Thailand (I don't know the others). The American ambassador is Ralph L. Boyce.

I have to agree with NAS on this. There is no "universal" value system. Every culture and every nation has it's own take on things, even within "east" and "west" there are huge differences between what's considered normal and what isn't. Pretending there is ultimately comes down to the "I'M RIGHT, YOURE WRONG!!!" philosophy, especially since I have never seen anyone who makes a case for "universal" values ever claim the values of a system different to their own was the "universal" one.Even if it's true that there is no universal system of values, it does not then follow that all sets of values are equal. It could be that some systems are better than others.

:DHe is a known political activist and a self proclaimed republican. I have no sympathy for him, and he had it coming.

If he was just an ignorant, stupid teenager in the throes of youthful mis-placed idealism, it should have been ignored. But the guy is obviously making a political statement and has actively courted the press in a bid to publicise his ideology.

All I regret about this incident is that the media has been allowed to cover the issue and thus give him the limelight he wanted. This should have been subject to a press blackout. He can't be allowed to be a martyr for his cause because that is exactly what he wants.

Whether or not this is best achieved through a royal pardon (could be good PR) or attempting to persuade him to publicly recant in return for release (better, but might backfire once he's off the leash) or just to leave him in prison and wait for the fuss to die down is debatable. His petition hasn't exactly been a beacon of support so it's doubtful there are many people who will keep up a campaign.

Either way, whatever happens to him, he deserves it.

Fair enough:rolleyes:...A little thought experiment: You are a thai in, say, the UK. Due to the athmosphere of fear after certain terrorist-attacks all foreigners are to swear lojalty to the Queen. This loyalty-oath must naturally involve non-loyalty to foreign powers such as the homeland. Would not such an oath be of trouble to you? If so, would you still take it? If so, would you take it even if it required shitting on a picture of the king of Thailand?

My point if that you too, albeit unknowingly, discriminate towards your own set of values and understanding of the world. Your reasons to accept the little king's misuse of power are, at least partly, due to your background. This political activist has other values than you do. Do you think it is right if we deported you because you didn't agree with us? Bon voyage!:D:D:D

My people believe that the best form of government is where everyone is over the age of 60 and has at least three children. Are you going to come and tell us we're wrong? Frankly, I think it's rather stupid to have a government where you're allowed to say whatever the hell you want- people can die that way! We all got together and decided the best possible system was one where the oldest and most experienced of us ruled. What's wrong with that?

Even if it's true that there is no universal system of values, it does not then follow that all sets of values are equal. It could be that some systems are better than others.

"it's the best we've got so far" seems to be the axiom that's most appropriate.

I am a university student living in Bangkok, Thailand, and I come here to let the
world know that there is one country on this good earth where injustice and
hatred reign over its population, and anyone who defies the cruel regime will be
mercilessly suppressed...

My friend, Chotisak Onsoong, a political activist who protested against the
royally-endorsed 2006 coup, is in grave trouble. He is charged with lese majeste
("disrespect the king") laws and could face 15 years in jail. What has he done
to deserve such trial?? Well,

He remained seated in cinema while the propaganda music video about Thai king
was being played. He was assaulted, verbally abused, and driven out of cinema
by another movie-goer. But when he tried to file complain to the police about
how he had been treated, he was instead charged with lese majeste.

You can read about this incident here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3803939.ece
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBKK24418820080422?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1164&Itemid=31
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=609


Lese majeste in Thailand is probably one of the most draconian laws in the world.
It granted maximum authority over all of Thai population to the royal family,
and it has been used to crush down any opponent in the past recent years.

Please don't say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Chotisak is a Thai
citizen but he rejected to follow such slave-like way of living. The laws that
is intended to punish anyone who thinks differently is unacceptable in this
modern world.

All I ask of you is to acknowledge this crime which Thai state inflicted upon
its own civilian. Chotisak would be surely put in jail, and there is no hope to
do anything about it.

All I want now, is that this crime will not go unnoticed by the outside world.

I sympathise with you and your friends but there are other nations like that. Take Saudi Arabia and the Phillipines for example.

Big thanks to many posters who expressed their sympathies for my victimized
friend, and to those who shared the ideas about freedom of speech and
unjust laws. I'm indeed greatly appreciated. I would have Chotisak come here
and thank you all by himself if only he could speak English! Haha. He even
needs a translator during interview with foreign reporters.

Now, let me share with you about what I think concerning "universal justice".
I strongly believe that the idea of democractic means and freedom of speech
and other ways of bringing equality to the society IS NOT restricted only to
western nations. It is not about "western" or "american"; it is about the year
2008, and the fact that the authority can't commit crime upon civilians just
because they disagree with the state.

I accept that Chotisak did actually break laws. But let me tell you:

- He did not believe that not standing up for royal anthem is lese majeste.
Insulting the king, he reckoned, means something rude. All he did was to
peacefully remain seated.

- He WAS NOT aware that there is any laws forcing people to stand up for
royal anthem. In fact, there is. Many experts pointed to the 1942 Act of
National Culture which stated that everyone MUST stand up for royal anthem,
national anthem, military anthem, ... otherwise he might face months in jail.
(but how the hell could this tyrant laws survive until these days, I do not know.
Most of Thais don't stand up for national anthem anyway but no one gives a damn.)

.................

I would love to launch a campaign demanding the lese majeste to be nullified,
or reformed, but the logic which rampages in Thailand stated that since the
lese majeste is a weapon defending their god-king, anyone trying to repeal
the laws are enemy of the god-king. Sorry, but it is that idiotic.

However, I hope that in the future, when there are enough people who
agree with my cause and are ready to stand up, changes will surely come.
It is not about probability. It is about inevitability. Eh?

Thanks again for all of your comments. I'm deeply touched.
Teerana Charuvastra (TONY)


ps. I'd try to contact the Amnesty Organization, too.
pps. Just like I said, there is no hope to set him free. So yes, I'd try to highlight
the stupidity of this laws.

The fact that I don't use any form of cultural, historical or otherwise non-universal justification for what I'm saying.


Sorry, this merely means that you're saying "I'm right because I am." Your observations are tempered by perception, and perception is a product of your cultural and educational upbringing. To say otherwise would mean a disconnect from your mental structure to your observations, which would indicate a machine status.


And that's wrong too. And when I feel the need to use illegal drugs, then I do it and the law can get stuffed. I feel no shame for doing that, since there is no obligation to follow a law that is unjust.

Then by this line of reasoning, there is no need for anyone to adhere to safety guidelines, traffic laws, or any number of laws in place that are meant to create an ordered society. Which in this case, is anarchy.


Thai people can think what they want. What you have to understand is that just because their victim also happens to be a Thai citizen does not give them the right to force their opinions on him by force.

Are they forcing their opinions on him? No. They are forcing a specific behavior, not an opinion. All laws force specific behavior at the threat of penalty.

If you are arguing against this, then you are arguing for anarchy.


He is being captured and sent to jail. If he resists, he will be hurt or killed. That's violence, no matter which way you look at it.

Then being arrested for drunk driving can be called violent retribution, if you want to twist such things. Or maybe even jaywalking. All forms of arrest are violent retribution by your reasoning. How banal. I expected this sort of thing from trolls like USoA. You disappoint me.


So if we made a society in which murder wasn't illegal, and people started killing each other, that would be fine?

We make a society? Society makes itself. And murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Making murder not illegal is a contradiction of terms.

Also, past and current societies have been noted to create societal norms where the killing of another human was accepted, so long as a set of conditions were triggered. This is not really any different in a material sense to any state with the death penalty.


Yes. But the standards they have to fulfill are not.


Standards which you somehow think you are qualified to mete out.


It is not an automatic assumption and they are not values.


They are indeed your values, and it is indeed an automatic assumption. The very fact that I am disagreeing with you, should tell you how non-universal your ideas are.


I have gone over this several times now. It is the result of looking at the characteristics that all humans have in common, regardless of culture, and realising that these characteristics directly lead to a certain minimal code of law.

And these codes of law have varied vastly from culture to culture. Before the Spaniards wiped them out, the Aztec would have been of interest. Or how about the tribal groups of say, Afghanistan and Pakistan? What of the 19th century Tibetan code of laws?

I would conclude that your looking was on a very narrow scope.


All humans require a law that stops others from shooting them in the middle of the road. It doesn't matter whether I'm from Thailand, Iran or Australia, if there is a risk that I get shot at any point, that has precisely the same implications for my life and for society in general.

Yet not all humans seem to require, or even want, this universalist idea of yours made into law.


It's still a strawman. Either the "Way of Ni" is strictly negative, ie the enforcement of freedom from the things like murder, or it is a violation of the basic requirements for human life.


Religious belief isn't needed for human life. Yet I can safely say most of the worlds population would resist the idea.


What the aliens say about it is irrelevant, as is their power to enforce whatever they decide is law.

So why is what you say then relevant?


This whole thing is not me enforcing something.


You are advocating something. You simply lack the means and motive to make that advocation into reality.


It's me pointing something out that already exists, independently of my observation by virtue of the fact that Thai people are humans.


Does it exist? Then there should be means of measuring it. Means of determining its nature. Yet, nothing but philosophical debate seems to indicate it might even exist, and philosophy is divided on that.

It's existence is based solely on the perceptions of those who want it to exist. It doesn't exist in any tangible form.


Indeed. Hence why I'm not a big fan of legislatures...they tend to add more laws than they destroy, and we basically have to assume that in all probability a new law is a bad thing.


Why then, laws against the killing of another human should then be opposed by you. Because serial killers surely object to it. So should you.


So they can come up with an objectively true reason why not standing up to a picture of the king should result in 15 years jail time? Or would all their arguments just boil down to some version of "because I feel that way", "because that's tradition" or "because I can"?

Which is different from your stance, how?


I'm leaving them out, just as I am leaving religion out. They are subjective opinions and bear no relevance to questions of law, right and wrong.


Right and wrong have nothing to do with law. Right and wrong are independent constructs separate, although it sometimes intersects, from law.


Yes, I have been educated not to expect or accept to be shot at any point in time. It must be different in Thailand.

Lovely straw man.


Would you please stop talking about these ideas in terms of the person who is bringing them forward? It's an ad hominem argument.

It is an argument that you formulated, that is not grounded in any physically detectable or measurable units and is based entirely upon a philosophical construct that by its very nature, has influence from the one who came up with it. It cannot help but be discussed in terms of the one who brought them up.


Even if everything I said was only because of my culture, even that would still not be enough to conclude that it doesn't hold true universally.

I do not conclude it to be so. Expanding your earlier agreement of laws being unjust due to even a single dissenter, your philosophical stance thereby cannot be true due to a single dissenting point of view.


And that's right and proper then?

Not that you are actually answering the question. I was talking about the Holocaust, ie a law that is used to commit genocide. The method or its similarities to random other events in world history isn't important.


Then be more specific when you say "ferrying people to gas chambers". It is quite open to interpretation.

If you mean laws in favor of ethnic cleansing, which seem to only apply when it's done on an intra-species setting, allow me to counter with this. I will not answer it for one very simple reason. It would legitimize your example.


You do realise that this means that no morality exists, right?


Of course. Morality is an abstract concept. It is simply a philosophical creation, ingrained through millennia of practice, to allow for a functional social model.


Even culture is no defence against it, because as we now know there are Thais who don't want to stand up for the king. Are they no longer Thai? No, they still are.

Culture has nothing to do with one's place of birth or ethnic origin.


But the things we call "culture" don't apply universally and in the same way to every member of them. They're generalisations, which means that the prescriptions that come from culture are also just generalisations. And that in turn means that there is no difference between enforcing a Thai law on this dude and enforcing the same law on some American dude. Neither are part of the culture that says such a law is necessary.


There is a world of difference. Of course you would say there is none, since you subscribe to a universalist type viewpoint of one shoe fits all. I think we've seen American practices of that so called "universalist" viewpoint in other nations before, much to their detriment.

The evidence clearly speaks against it.


I acknowledge that they exist. I don't think they're valid, but as of yet I haven't made an argument good enough to prove them wrong. But that's not the point I was making.

So if you cannot prove the shades of grey wrong, how can you even prove that your view is right? You cannot.


No, the fact that we are human beings tells us what is and isn't right. Usually it actually requires more thinking to overlook this than to acknowledge it.


Humans make up definitions of wrong and right. It isn't the other way around.


There is the possibility of a just government, but it doesn't exist right now. Do with that what you will.

Then if you admit as much, on the basis of your earlier argument, you would be proposing either no government at all, or turning the entire human race into a mono-mind entity.


Yep.


Is that so? One moment while I incite a mob to burn you at the stake.


No, I hold that things are true or false regardless of who says them.


True and false, superior or inferior, this one religion is true and all others are false, different names, same meaning.


It causes quite a lot of offense to some people, just like not standing up during this ad did.

No, no. How does one go about being gay? Does it involve pink and leather? I am most curious how that actually works.


In neither case is any actual harm done, but the mere presence of a dissenting view causes enough distress to make people call for laws to make it go away.

Which is what you are doing. Except you want a law removed. Not much difference. The irony.


Any particular ideas?


Parking a car in front of a fire escape and doing nothing comes to mind. Especially when a fire breaks out later.

:D

Fair enough:rolleyes:...A little thought experiment: You are a thai in, say, the UK. Due to the athmosphere of fear after certain terrorist-attacks all foreigners are to swear lojalty to the Queen. This loyalty-oath must naturally involve non-loyalty to foreign powers such as the homeland. Would not such an oath be of trouble to you? If so, would you still take it? If so, would you take it even if it required shitting on a picture of the king of Thailand?


A pledge of allegiance is very different to a simple showing of respect. Anyone can show respect, even if their allegiance is elsewhere. For example, I am a UK citizen, ergo my allegiance is owed to Queen Elizabeth II. This doesn't mean I don't have, and wouldn't show, respect for King Bhumibol (Rama IX) of Thailand. Doing so in no way changes my allegiances.

This comparison really doesn't work.

My point if that you too, albeit unknowingly, discriminate towards your own set of values and understanding of the world. Your reasons to accept the little king's misuse of power are, at least partly, due to your background.

What is my background? How does it discriminate against my values? What are my values?

This political activist has other values than you do. Do you think it is right if we deported you because you didn't agree with us? Bon voyage!:D:D:D

Everyone has different views. Not everyone forms a group to try an depose the ruler of their own country and use PR stunts to push that agenda forwards. There are things I disagree about with my government, but I wouldn't go and do what he did with the media. When you ferment disorder and trouble, expect to wind up in trouble.

Sorry, this merely means that you're saying "I'm right because I am." Your observations are tempered by perception, and perception is a product of your cultural and educational upbringing.
Okay, so you believe that there exists a person who does not require freedom from being exposed to the initiation of violence by others in order to live and work towards building an existence for themselves, but that it's merely my observations which don't allow me to perceive such a person?

To say otherwise would mean a disconnect from your mental structure to your observations, which would indicate a machine status.
The sky is blue. It blue regardless of my observations, my education or my culture. Saying "the sky is blue" is not something that is countered with "don't make universal statements, it's only blue for you", it's something that is countered with some evidence that the light that reaches the earth from the sky isn't in fact blue.

Then by this line of reasoning, there is no need for anyone to adhere to safety guidelines, traffic laws, or any number of laws in place that are meant to create an ordered society. Which in this case, is anarchy.
Some laws are meant to minimise the potential for harm. Traffic laws for example. And since most people see the reasoning behind that, they follow the basic rules (sometimes not to the letter, but that doesn't change the fact that road rules exist and coordinate traffic).

Such rules are examples of things to be added on top of the basic structure of good law. But beyond that, as I quoted before, there is no justification for using violence on someone for their own good.

What I advocate is not anarchy, because there exists a state which creates and upholds law. It is however a minarchist state, in that it refrains from forcing anyone to do anything and instead protects against things.

Are they forcing their opinions on him? No. They are forcing a specific behavior, not an opinion. All laws force specific behavior at the threat of penalty.
The behaviour is the outward expression of admiration and respect for the king. If it were possible, it would be inconsistent of a proponent of this law to leave it at that - instead the lack of admiration and respect itself should be punished. Unfortunately the means to detect thought-crime are not yet available to governments worldwide and so they have to make do with laws that make it look as though everyone is thinking the "right" way, rather than actually doing it.

Again, that doesn't change the statement I was making though. Whether it's opinions or "specific behaviour", they are still not justified in enforcing it when it doesn't actually concern their own safety.

Then being arrested for drunk driving can be called violent retribution, if you want to twist such things. Or maybe even jaywalking. All forms of arrest are violent retribution by your reasoning. How banal. I expected this sort of thing from trolls like USoA. You disappoint me.
I didn't think this one would be particularly controversial. The enforcement of law is based on violence. Failing to follow a law can lead to penalties, which all come down to violence, since that is the way the issue is ultimately settled.

So yes, jaywalking, drunk driving and exposing my genitals to old ladies in the park will lead to violent retribution against me.

We make a society? Society makes itself. And murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Making murder not illegal is a contradiction of terms.
Society makes itself? How does it do that? It's even less real than the thing you call morality.

Also, past and current societies have been noted to create societal norms where the killing of another human was accepted, so long as a set of conditions were triggered. This is not really any different in a material sense to any state with the death penalty.
But the set of conditions already creates rules of physical safety. Euthanasia is also killing another person, but it is done when certain conditions are met - namely the consent of both parties.

Once something has consent, it's no longer a matter for law, since nobody has to be protected from anything anymore.

The only actual example of such a society I can think of would be medieval Japan, where Samurai could go as far as killing peasants who didn't crawl on the floor before them. Which incidentally is remarkably similar to a bunch of people ganging up and bashing a dude for not paying respect to a king.

But then, the peasants didn't have much of a life. Their humanity was denied and they were treated as property, and as such they died young and had no chance to do anything other than physically exist for a while and perhaps produce offspring. They were unable to plan anything for the future, invent anything or otherwise do the things needed for humanity not to disappear again.

That was done for a while, unsustainably in the long term, because it only affected a portion of society. What you couldn't do is have the same rules apply to everyone in society.

Standards which you somehow think you are qualified to mete out.
No, I just state them. I didn't invent them, I don't have to enforce them.

They are indeed your values, and it is indeed an automatic assumption. The very fact that I am disagreeing with you, should tell you how non-universal your ideas are.
That's not how universality works. 2+2 is universally 4. Just because someone disagrees with me and says it's 5 doesn't make it a subjective statement.

And these codes of law have varied vastly from culture to culture.
No, those aren't the minimal codes I am talking about. These variations are, for the most part, in the add-ons on top of objective law. There are also differences in the way they violated objective law.

The nature of objective law does not change.

Yet not all humans seem to require, or even want, this universalist idea of yours made into law.
They all require it. What they want is irrelevant in this respect.

They all require it because whenever a person comes into contact, that is conflict, with an a non-universal law, they will notice that to continue living, they actually need to have this law removed, or perish. If an unjust law exists, but it is never applied to me, then it's as though the law didn't exist at all. The reason you can tell that a law is unjust is because you can change it in a way that makes it conflict with you without changing the principle. For example, if you really hated Britney Spears, but the law said you have to honour and respect her when a video of hers is played in a movie theatre, then the principle of these lese majeste law hasn't been touched. Only the particular subject on which it is applied has.

So you now either stand for Britney, or you go to jail. If you resist, you will eventually be killed. So either you do something you consider wrong by pain of death, or you die. You cannot live in a world in which that is consistently the choice.

Religious belief isn't needed for human life. Yet I can safely say most of the worlds population would resist the idea.
What idea?

So why is what you say then relevant?
Because I cannot describe a tree by saying "Frank said it".

You are advocating something. You simply lack the means and motive to make that advocation into reality.
What I am advocating is a reaction, not an action. It's the return to where things were and where they should be.

If I punch you, and you tell me to stop it, then you're not initiating an action. You're reacting to something I am doing to you. If I weren't doing it, you wouldn't say anything. You stopping me from punching you wouldn't be an initiation of force, and it wouldn't be a violation of my rights.

I am advocating no government action. That is different to advocating a government action.

Does it exist? Then there should be means of measuring it. Means of determining its nature. Yet, nothing but philosophical debate seems to indicate it might even exist, and philosophy is divided on that.
Philosophy is divided on that because many (probably most) philosophers are wrong.

It's existence is based solely on the perceptions of those who want it to exist. It doesn't exist in any tangible form.
Neither does "2". But that doesn't mean "2" isn't real and we can have a long debate about what "2" is without being able to come to a conclusion.

Why then, laws against the killing of another human should then be opposed by you. Because serial killers surely object to it. So should you.
Except that a serial killer is violating the universal rules of law. Again, what he thinks about it is irrelevant.

Which is different from your stance, how?
I have been discussing this at length now.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with law. Right and wrong are independent constructs separate, although it sometimes intersects, from law.
Oddly enough, that means that something can be both law and wrong. Weird...

Lovely straw man.
It's not a straw man, it's the implication of saying that objective law isn't really objective. If what I consider acceptable law depends on my culture and education, and there is no such law that applies universally (for example one that makes it wrong to be shot at any point in time), then there must be people who accept and expect to be legally shot at any point in time.

It is an argument that you formulated, that is not grounded in any physically detectable or measurable units and is based entirely upon a philosophical construct that by its very nature, has influence from the one who came up with it. It cannot help but be discussed in terms of the one who brought them up.
Just like the number "2".

I do not conclude it to be so. Expanding your earlier agreement of laws being unjust due to even a single dissenter, your philosophical stance thereby cannot be true due to a single dissenting point of view.
No. A law is unjust when it is not an objective law, but an addition to it. When such an addition is forced upon someone against their will, that constitutes a violation of objective law. The addition is therefore unjust, wrong law.

My philosophical stance simply says that something can be known. That is not the same as saying everyone knows it, and certainly not that everyone is actually then acting upon that knowledge.

If you mean laws in favor of ethnic cleansing, which seem to only apply when it's done on an intra-species setting, allow me to counter with this. I will not answer it for one very simple reason. It would legitimize your example.
And rather than stretch your own idea of things, you prefer to pretend that the legitimacy of this example depends on your acceptance of it. Which is somewhat consistent with the rest of your stance, but still incorrect.

Of course. Morality is an abstract concept. It is simply a philosophical creation, ingrained through millennia of practice, to allow for a functional social model.
Running the risk of beating an analogy to death: "2" is an abstract concept. It's a mathematical creation, ingrained through millennia of practice, to allow for the various stuff we use the number for.

That doesn't mean "2" doesn't exist and/or that we can agree to disagree on what it is.

There is a world of difference.
What is it?

So if you cannot prove the shades of grey wrong, how can you even prove that your view is right? You cannot.
Nobody is arguing for shades of grey, because it's not consistently possible. Either property rights (as in universal rights that it is wrong to violate regardless of the situation) exist, or they don't. If you say property rights simply exists because a law says they do, you are saying they don't exist at all, because it implies that all it would take to rightfully violate this right is to change the wording on a piece of paper, ie take an unrelated action.

Humans make up definitions of wrong and right. It isn't the other way around.
Not "make up definitions". The word you should use is "define", and they don't do so through deliberation, they do it through existing.

Then if you admit as much, on the basis of your earlier argument, you would be proposing either no government at all, or turning the entire human race into a mono-mind entity.
Neither of these follows.

Is that so? One moment while I incite a mob to burn you at the stake.
You go ahead. I'll take my grievances up with the people who are actually at fault.

True and false, superior or inferior, this one religion is true and all others are false, different names, same meaning.
That's almost good enough to be sigged.

No, no. How does one go about being gay? Does it involve pink and leather? I am most curious how that actually works.
You know, be homosexual. It's not a choice, obviously, but that doesn't mean it's not a characteristic of a person, just like I am "being male". And my maleness can certainly cause offense to some people too.

Which is what you are doing. Except you want a law removed. Not much difference. The irony.
I covered that above.

Parking a car in front of a fire escape and doing nothing comes to mind. Especially when a fire breaks out later.
But would that not lead to physical harm?

Okay, so you believe


No, I know that people and their perceptions are widely varied, including the values and ideas as to what is just. This thread is a small sampling of proof. NSG is a bigger sample size to prove the concept.


that there exists a person who does not require freedom from being exposed to the initiation of violence by others in order to live and work towards building an existence for themselves, but that it's merely my observations which don't allow me to perceive such a person?

The bolded is simply your assertion and is not backed by facts. The rest simply smacks of denial of diverse perceptions and sense of morals which differ from your universalist views.


The sky is blue. It blue regardless of my observations, my education or my culture. Saying "the sky is blue" is not something that is countered with "don't make universal statements, it's only blue for you", it's something that is countered with some evidence that the light that reaches the earth from the sky isn't in fact blue.

And the evidence of a universalist viewpoint is... ?

Silly person. You cannot use empirical data to support a purely philosophical viewpoint.


Some laws are meant to minimise the potential for harm. Traffic laws for example. And since most people see the reasoning behind that, they follow the basic rules (sometimes not to the letter, but that doesn't change the fact that road rules exist and coordinate traffic).


But that does not matter if we use your basis of universalist human rights.


But beyond that, as I quoted before, there is no justification for using violence on someone for their own good.

I see you advocate letting the mentally unstable, the belligerently drunk, and the hysterical run amok.


What I advocate is not anarchy, because there exists a state which creates and upholds law. It is however a minarchist state, in that it refrains from forcing anyone to do anything and instead protects against things.

Then a minarchist state cannot exist because it has no means of supporting itself. Who exactly wants to pay taxes after all?


The behaviour is the outward expression of admiration and respect for the king. If it were possible, it would be inconsistent of a proponent of this law to leave it at that - instead the lack of admiration and respect itself should be punished. Unfortunately the means to detect thought-crime are not yet available to governments worldwide and so they have to make do with laws that make it look as though everyone is thinking the "right" way, rather than actually doing it.

Again, that doesn't change the statement I was making though. Whether it's opinions or "specific behaviour", they are still not justified in enforcing it when it doesn't actually concern their own safety.

Curiously enough, if we were to use your "universalist" approach and apply it to say, interactions between the police and general public, one nearly universal law is that failure to comply with the police can be considered to be an arrestable offence.

Where then, is your "universalist human rights" then hmm?


I didn't think this one would be particularly controversial. The enforcement of law is based on violence. Failing to follow a law can lead to penalties, which all come down to violence, since that is the way the issue is ultimately settled.

So yes, jaywalking, drunk driving and exposing my genitals to old ladies in the park will lead to violent retribution against me.

Fines are violence? Jail is violence? How droll.


Society makes itself? How does it do that? It's even less real than the thing you call morality.

I call morality? I am not the one who expounds a universal standard of human rights and morality.

Society is a human construct, an amalgamation of human values and perceptions that occurs when there is any grouping of humans that are bonded together for a sufficiently long period of time where they begin to craft and formulate their rules based on those very values and perceptions.

Society, makes itself.


But the set of conditions already creates rules of physical safety. Euthanasia is also killing another person, but it is done when certain conditions are met - namely the consent of both parties.

Not all societies had conditions that required the consent of both parties. Try again.


The only actual example of such a society I can think of would be medieval Japan, where Samurai could go as far as killing peasants who didn't crawl on the floor before them. Which incidentally is remarkably similar to a bunch of people ganging up and bashing a dude for not paying respect to a king.


Try medieval Europe. Or Imperial China.


But then, the peasants didn't have much of a life. Their humanity was denied and they were treated as property, and as such they died young and had no chance to do anything other than physically exist for a while and perhaps produce offspring. They were unable to plan anything for the future, invent anything or otherwise do the things needed for humanity not to disappear again.

That was done for a while, unsustainably in the long term, because it only affected a portion of society. What you couldn't do is have the same rules apply to everyone in society.

The Aztecs got along just fine the way they did things. They had ritualized sacrifice, and it wasn't that they denied the humanity of their victim, but acknowledged it, that's why they were sacrificed it.

They would have probably still been around if the Spaniards hadn't wiped them out with smallpox.


No, I just state them. I didn't invent them, I don't have to enforce them.


You act as if it is some kind of measurable, empirically proven datum, when it is really nothing more than a philosophical point of view.


That's not how universality works. 2+2 is universally 4. Just because someone disagrees with me and says it's 5 doesn't make it a subjective statement.


Math != philosophy. Are you being disingenuous, or merely deceitful in trying to pretend otherwise?


No, those aren't the minimal codes I am talking about. These variations are, for the most part, in the add-ons on top of objective law. There are also differences in the way they violated objective law.

So you DO admit that there are differences, even in the core structure. Yet this does not square with your "universalist" approach.


They all require it. What they want is irrelevant in this respect.


They all require it? Or else what? Their society will collapse? Barring external causes, quite a few societies got along just fine not requiring your universal laws.

The rest of your example is just so much straw.


What idea?


The idea of the Way of Ni which would do away with religion under its "universalist" values.


Because I cannot describe a tree by saying "Frank said it".


But that is what you are doing with your stance.


What I am advocating is a reaction, not an action. It's the return to where things were and where they should be.

If I punch you, and you tell me to stop it, then you're not initiating an action. You're reacting to something I am doing to you. If I weren't doing it, you wouldn't say anything. You stopping me from punching you wouldn't be an initiation of force, and it wouldn't be a violation of my rights.

I am advocating no government action. That is different to advocating a government action.


You are advocating a change within the government. Even cessation is change.


Philosophy is divided on that because many (probably most) philosophers are wrong.

Hah! So we come to the crux of the issue! You proclaim that they are probably wrong, so as to pave the way for your "rightness", without even being able to show in any proven basis how your stance is in any shape or form, correct.

"I'm right, everyone else is wrong."

A repetition of events.


Neither does "2". But that doesn't mean "2" isn't real and we can have a long debate about what "2" is without being able to come to a conclusion.

The difference being that 2 is a designation and from a mathematical proofing experiment, can be proven with a handful of beans. You haven't proven anything.


Except that a serial killer is violating the universal rules of law. Again, what he thinks about it is irrelevant.

Yet what you think about such matters is relevant. Double standards much?


I have been discussing this at length now.


And dancing around the stickier aspects of your stance it seems.


Oddly enough, that means that something can be both law and wrong. Weird...

Yet what is right and what is wrong? Context is everything. And in a world where perceptions are but context experienced, malleable as it is, right and wrong can often be on the same sides of the coin, or on the other side of it.

Two hundred years ago, how many people believed, and with all their heart and soul, that people of certain skin colors, or simply of another, less developed portion of the world, were not even human, fit only for chattel. How many of them would even say they were wrong to do what they did? If you were born in that world 200 years ago, would you believe as they did? Even come to the conclusion of a universal human law, which only fits to a specific definition of human?

You very well could have.


It's not a straw man, it's the implication of saying that objective law isn't really objective. If what I consider acceptable law depends on my culture and education, and there is no such law that applies universally (for example one that makes it wrong to be shot at any point in time), then there must be people who accept and expect to be legally shot at any point in time.


Absence of law is not law. Do try again.


Just like the number "2".


Except that math can be proven.

Look, the rest of the post and argument is going to be rehashes of everything we've covered. You refuse to budge and will not prove in any comprehensive way of the universalness of your ideas, and when challenge, retreat to a basic defense of "but they should! Because I'm right."

I've listed examples which go to show that your ideas, even at the core structure, are not anywhere as universal as you think they should be.

Long post is long, and if it's clear that it's going nowhere, I'd rather just throw the whole thing into the bin. Maybe I'll address them some other time, when it doesn't feel like rehashing the same thing.

he should of used peaceful debate and all that stuff to change the law, not break it and moan when he gets punished for breaking the law.

hard cheese I say

agreed

Even if it's true that there is no universal system of values, it does not then follow that all sets of values are equal. It could be that some systems are better than others.

Not really. Rather, people think their own is "best" and that all others are "barbaric". Doesn't make it so.

My people believe that the best form of government is where everyone is over the age of 60 and has at least three children. Are you going to come and tell us we're wrong? Frankly, I think it's rather stupid to have a government where you're allowed to say whatever the hell you want- people can die that way! We all got together and decided the best possible system was one where the oldest and most experienced of us ruled. What's wrong with that?There may or may not be anything wrong with your system of government.

"it's the best we've got so far" seems to be the axiom that's most appropriate.Yes, I think so.

Not really. Rather, people think their own is "best" and that all others are "barbaric". Doesn't make it so.True, but it doesn't mean there is no "best", either.

True, but it doesn't mean there is no "best", either.

It does in absolute terms, as everyone's idea of "best" is totallyt different. My view of the "best" possible government is more than likely utterly different to yours, and yours utterly different to person X's, whose idea of "best" is different again. It's the same with nations.

A pledge of allegiance is very different to a simple showing of respect. Anyone can show respect, even if their allegiance is elsewhere. For example, I am a UK citizen, ergo my allegiance is owed to Queen Elizabeth II. This doesn't mean I don't have, and wouldn't show, respect for King Bhumibol (Rama IX) of Thailand. Doing so in no way changes my allegiances.

This comparison really doesn't work.



What is my background? How does it discriminate against my values? What are my values?



Everyone has different views. Not everyone forms a group to try an depose the ruler of their own country and use PR stunts to push that agenda forwards. There are things I disagree about with my government, but I wouldn't go and do what he did with the media. When you ferment disorder and trouble, expect to wind up in trouble.

I'm a bit confused:confused:...So you actually admit that you make a distinction between an oath of allegiance and a "sign of respect" in asserting whether this individual should have followed the law?! It's not that I utterly disagree with such a distinction in more practical terms; rather it is remarkable because this means you actually make your own judgement of the law before deciding if you want to follow it. My point exactly: You deem the law ok, other deem it otherwise. Therefore a law I deem ok I can shove down your throat?

I'll try another example to make it more clear: You are an UK citizen. As such you are by most international standards protected from my previous threath of deportation. If parliament were to use their power to remove that right and order deportation of all citizens which stated views on the internet like you just did, would that be legitimate in your opinion?

Is it not so that "law" as a concept of something "elected representatives" have written must undergo some form of scrutiny based on moral, logic, proportionality etc? In short: Are you or are you not a supporter of "tyranny by majority"?

A bit on the side: Forgive my curiosity, but are you originally from the UK(main-land) and are your parents? It surely doesn't show in your approach to this issue.

I'm a bit confused:confused:...So you actually admit that you make a distinction between an oath of allegiance and a "sign of respect" in asserting whether this individual should have followed the law?!

Yes, they are different things. If I visit Thailand as a foreigner I would expect and would be expected to show respect to the ruler of that country, in the same way I'd expect to be abide by their other cultural norms whilst I am there. However I am still a citizen of the UK. If I wanted to live in Thailand and be considered a Thai citizen, then I would expect to make a pledge of loyalty/allegiance to Rama IX and the Thai state, since I would then "belong" there, not here.

I am not saying that this has anything to do with his following the law, rather trying to explain how the example you gave is not really directly related to the situation. He, as a Thai citizen, owes his allegiance to the King of Thailand, which seems to also include showing appropriate respect, which he did not, and would certainly include not trying to overthrow the government, which he was campaigning for.

It's not that I utterly disagree with such a distinction in more practical terms; rather it is remarkable because this means you actually make your own judgement of the law before deciding if you want to follow it.

I do not, I merely point out the difference between being a citizen of a country and a temporary visitor to it. I am in no way above the law, nor may I pass judgement as to whether or not it is "worth" my following. If I break the rules, there are consequences. The same for our dear republican friend.

My point exactly: You deem the law OK, other deem it otherwise. Therefore a law I deem OK I can shove down your throat?

If you are the ruler of the country and I am a citizen of that same country, yes. Unless, of course, said country is some kind of commune where things are different. But in most countries the state passes the law and you either obey it, or go to jail and don't pass go.


I'll try another example to make it more clear: You are an UK citizen. As such you are by most international standards protected from my previous threat of deportation. If parliament were to use their power to remove that right and order deportation of all citizens which stated views on the Internet like you just did, would that be legitimate in your opinion?

If it passed through the Commons, Lords and Royal Assent, then yes, it's legitimate by the system of government of the country, and so in my eyes, yes. Though I have my differences with our government, I would never express it by breaking the laws the state makes, even if it is the Commons that dreams them up in fits of vote winning fervour.

Is it not so that "law" as a concept of something "elected representatives" have written must undergo some form of scrutiny based on moral, logic, proportionality etc? In short: Are you or are you not a supporter of "tyranny by majority"?

I don't support the tyranny of the majority. Bad idea. That does not mean laws shouldn't undergo careful consideration. In fact, that is one reason why I do not support the tyranny of the majority.

A bit on the side: Forgive my curiosity, but are you originally from the UK(main-land) and are your parents? It surely doesn't show in your approach to this issue.

I was born in the UK mainland, travelled with my family in the Mid East as a child, spent most of my teenage years and early twenties in South East Asia, married to an Asian anarchist/socialist (divorced), now back in the UK. I have mixed background, so I've seen a lot of different "sides". I use history to think a lot of things over, Egypt, Greece and Rome.

Look, the rest of the post and argument is going to be rehashes of everything we've covered. You refuse to budge and will not prove in any comprehensive way of the universalness of your ideas, and when challenge, retreat to a basic defense of "but they should! Because I'm right."

I've listed examples which go to show that your ideas, even at the core structure, are not anywhere as universal as you think they should be.

Long post is long, and if it's clear that it's going nowhere, I'd rather just throw the whole thing into the bin. Maybe I'll address them some other time, when it doesn't feel like rehashing the same thing.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I really think you completely failed to understand the point I was trying to make because you were so locked into the idea that I am simply declaring universality without having spent a long time thinking about it.

I also think you're very wrong about philosophy and ethics. 2 can't be proven by itself, it's an abstract assumption, used because its implications hold true in the real world. The same is true for morality. Indeed, there is a whole field of philosophy that concerns itself with mathematics, and the logic of proofs in particular - which feeds right into epistomology, which in turn feeds right into my assertion that we can derive a universal, moral, minimal code of law from the characteristics of humans. And the fact that some people don't know this law, or don't act on it, doesn't change the logic of the derivation or the correctness of the result, just as it doesn't in the field of mathematics.

Your examples weren't all that good. When the Aztecs sacrificed someone, they didn't do it because they acknowledged and respected that person's humanity, but because they thought there was some magic involved. That's not the same thing, because humanity again is a well-defined concept which doesn't involve magic. Furthermore, what all your examples had in common was that the "law" wasn't applied equally to all. If we have a law that makes it quite possible for me to get killed, or for my produce to be used up by someone else, at any point in time, then I won't be as forward-planning. But someone has to be, otherwise there will be no planning at all. So in effect the universal rules still have to apply - it's simply that they're violated for everyone but a select group of people: kings, priests and the like. Having an entire society in which the universal requirements => rules => enforced law apply to no one at all is best described as civil war.

So I don't think you made an effort to understand what I was saying. You had your mind made up from the very first post, and that was the end of it.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I really think you completely failed to understand the point I was trying to make because you were so locked into the idea that I am simply declaring universality without having spent a long time thinking about it.

And somehow you think I haven't spent a long time thinking about universality and how it doesn't fit? Because I have. It just never had cause to come to light until you showed up on the other side of the camp.


I also think you're very wrong about philosophy and ethics. 2 can't be proven by itself, it's an abstract assumption, used because its implications hold true in the real world.


Ah ha! So you speak of not the what but the how. Prove the how, is that your point?


The same is true for morality.


So how do you account for people with very different moral standards then? 2+2 can't become 5 can it?



which in turn feeds right into my assertion that we can derive a universal, moral, minimal code of law from the characteristics of humans.


Except it hasn't been applied to the point of testing has it?


Your examples weren't all that good. When the Aztecs sacrificed someone, they didn't do it because they acknowledged and respected that person's humanity, but because they thought there was some magic involved.


Oh please, do get it right. The Aztecs sacrificed people because they had a world view of debt repayment, in which the entire world could only function through the continued sacrifice of people. Something to do with their mythology about how they came into existence from gods who sacrificed themselves. If death was the only criteria, a chicken could have sufficed. Humans were specifically selected because they were human.


So I don't think you made an effort to understand what I was saying. You had your mind made up from the very first post, and that was the end of it.

Likewise, the same argument could be applied to you, you realize? The entirety of the posting history on this thread would bear a conclusion that could apply equally either way. That is why I said this would go no where.

It does in absolute terms, as everyone's idea of "best" is totallyt different. My view of the "best" possible government is more than likely utterly different to yours, and yours utterly different to person X's, whose idea of "best" is different again. It's the same with nations.Sure, but that's the beauty of (certain theories of) cultural relativism. There's no need to objectively prove your culture is the best, because while you can't prove your case right, your opponent can't prove you wrong.

Sure, but that's the beauty of (certain theories of) cultural relativism. There's no need to objectively prove your culture is the best, because while you can't prove your case right, your opponent can't prove you wrong.

That's true of anything that's subjective... Religion, politics. They are not things that are tangible, so people will always debate them, as ultimately there is no "proof" either way. If it were different we wouldn't have politics anymore in the sense we do now, since the proponents of one idealogy would have presented tangible proof that their system was the "correct" one and we'd all be following it.

That's true of anything that's subjective... Religion, politics. They are not things that are tangible, so people will always debate them, as ultimately there is no "proof" either way. If it were different we wouldn't have politics anymore in the sense we do now, since the proponents of one idealogy would have presented tangible proof that their system was the "correct" one and we'd all be following it.Correct, which means that anyone who holds the mindset "my system good, other systems bad" might not have reasons to not do so.

That's true of anything that's subjective... Religion, politics. They are not things that are tangible, so people will always debate them, as ultimately there is no "proof" either way. If it were different we wouldn't have politics anymore in the sense we do now, since the proponents of one idealogy would have presented tangible proof that their system was the "correct" one and we'd all be following it.

creationism

the fact that something is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent people from pretending otherwise.

Correct, which means that anyone who holds the mindset "my system good, other systems bad" might not have reasons to not do so.

Not really, since the view that there is no "best" system for everyone would kind of preclude one from assuming that yours is the "best" for everyone in the first place.

Take a look around the world, the nations that shout most loudly about how great their systems are, are also the ones who feel the entire world should follow them. Those that say different systems are necessary are those which don't.

creationism

the fact that something is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent people from pretending otherwise.

Creationism in religion is perfectly valid, for religion, like politics, is ultimately abstract as it's highest levels. It is when people claim creationism is hard science that it runs into the ground.

Likewise one can talk about the virtue of the hypothetical perfect free market over the perfect communism, since neither exist here in the physical world. But when you try to apply them in that high abstract form to the concrete world it will die a horrible, messy death.

So how do you account for people with very different moral standards then?
Because some people are just flat-out wrong?

Not really, since the view that there is no "best" system for everyone would kind of preclude one from assuming that yours is the "best" for everyone in the first place.

Take a look around the world, the nations that shout most loudly about how great their systems are, are also the ones who feel the entire world should follow them. Those that say different systems are necessary are those which don't.There isn't objectively (provably) a best system for everyone, but there's nothing precluding large numbers of people holding the same subjective opinion.

Creationism in religion is perfectly valid, for religion, like politics, is ultimately abstract as it's highest levels.

What does this even mean?

If it were different we wouldn't have politics anymore in the sense we do now, since the proponents of one idealogy would have presented tangible proof that their system was the "correct" one and we'd all be following it.

But history doesn't operate according to laws of reason. People can be dead wrong and still win, if they hold the power.

Because he is a political activist (http://www.amnesty.or.th/detail.asp?lan=en&menu_id=4&news_id=218
) and he wanted to make a statement, I guess.

There are better ways to rebel and express discontent than arrest and incarceration for 15 years.

Well this definitely makes a statement: Don't be a political activist in Thailand.

I'm not sure whats worse

a ) the fact that these type of laws still exist
or
b ) the fact that many people don't take an issue, and simply advise "Just go with it"


If everyone "just went with it" when it came to bad laws and oppressive regimes the world would be much different. People need to grow a pair of balls and take action. Your friend went about it the wrong way though, and it WAS kind of stupid to report an assault when you actively defied the totalitarian government... but I applaud his action. Too bad he'll be sitting in a jail cell, but if enough people stood up for (or in this case, sat down for) what they believed in the world would be drastically improved.

Creationism in religion is perfectly valid

except that it is false. merely calling something 'religion' doesn't excuse it from having a truth value, and all of the ramifications that entails.

I was in Thailand for an IB Theatre Program and one of my idiot classmates managed to get himself deported by jokingly throwing out the Roman (Nazi) Salute during the Royal Anthem before a Likay performance.

When I think of "stifling, oppressive governments", Thailand isn't exactly at the top of my list. It's a rather ridiculous thing not to just comply with, but I suppose everybody expresses their displeasure with the current system in their own way. Good luck to your friend.