How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

[radcen]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

 

[Praxas]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

Pretty simplistic views on complex subjects. For instance just because I don't believe in building a wall, doesn't mean I want open borders or immigration control. I have a friend who came to this country illegally with her parents and she ended up joining the military for citizenship. I think the wait is extremely long and expensive and that immigration reform is also needed.

As for the death penalty, there are very good points on both sides. For instance, I am of the belief that some criminals are better off dead. They are a threat to others with their existence in general population. I also accept the anti-death penalty points of innocent people being put on death row and the moral dilemma with the state executing a citizen.

 

[scatt]

The world has no free speech. I prefer the US be not the world.

 

[ocean515]

As has been the demonstrated nature of humans since the first groups banded together for mutual gain, Nations establish the boundaries of like minded inhabitants who in one form or another, establish their own guidelines for living.

The United States of America, and hence, it's citizens, establish rules for living that suit their beliefs and standards exclusive of the actions citizens in other Nations adopt for themselves.

Other Nations should have no influence on what the citizens of the US adopt, although some policies are universal, and shouldn't be taken as being evidence of influence.

 

[radcen]

Pretty simplistic views on complex subjects. For instance just because I don't believe in building a wall, doesn't mean I want open borders or immigration control. I have a friend who came to this country illegally with her parents and she ended up joining the military for citizenship. I think the wait is extremely long and expensive and that immigration reform is also needed.

As for the death penalty, there are very good points on both sides. For instance, I am of the belief that some criminals are better off dead. They are a threat to others with their existence in general population. I also accept the anti-death penalty points of innocent people being put on death row and the moral dilemma with the state executing a citizen.

The purpose of the thread isn't about the examples specifically. There are many other threads discussing those. It's about consistency in thinking how we determine whatever our issues may be, and our own inner intellectual honesty in reaching our conclusions.

 

[Praxas]

The purpose of the thread isn't about the examples specifically. There are many other threads discussing those. It's about consistency in thinking how we determine whatever our issues may be, and our own inner intellectual honesty in reaching our conclusions.

I don't know to many people that base their decisions on what other countries do. I see no inconsistency in stating the obvious that the world feels a certain way about a situation as long as the approval or denial of an issue is based on other factors and not just by "what the world thinks".

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

It doesn't really have much to do with whether other countries are or aren't doing a given thing, to my mind. It has to do with whether or not it's logical and/or right, depending on the issue.

Just because someone is thoughtful and intelligent doesn't mean they're an expert at absolutely everything. It also doesn't necessarily mean they're well-adjusted, which is a pretty common cause of people doing the wrong thing regardless of how smart they may be. Why do you have to have a "consistent" opinion on everything a given person/country does? Isn't that just blind partisanship?

You propose either following the herd or just assuming someone who agrees with you on something must be rational about everything as methods to determine who to "listen to." Well... what about practicing some actual critical thinking and evaluating any given idea on its own merits and then having a reasonable grown-up discussion?

To me, this is missing the point entirely. The proposed options here are just two different types of intellectual laziness.

 

[dorsai]

Other countries should have very little influence other than providing examples or actions to debate before we decide what is best for our own citizens. That doesn't mean that other countries can't vote with their feet or the wallet but just because Country A is doing something doesn't mean it is necessarily what we should be doing -- and vice versa.

Viewing other countries as a crucible and finding something that works and noting the things that don't is desirable. But taking an action simply because others are taking that action is not. Advice and suggestions should be welcomed -- and given. But each country has a right to self-determination.

I understand as well as anyone the United States doesn't always take that approach but that should be our goal. When it moves from advice and suggestions to actually trying to influence, we have, as my mother would say "gone from preachin' to meddlin'".

Preach. Don't meddle. Listen. Make our own decision.

 

[tres borrachos]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

I don't think we should ever write laws in this land based on what other countries do or don't do. We should base them on what works for the 320+ million people in the country.

 

[DaveFagan]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

Saudi Arabia invades Yemen and we sell lots of weapons to Saudi Arabia and they are getting used up in Yemen and that's good business. Al Qeda and ISIS are butt buddies of the Saudi Arabian Salafist/Wahabi community just like Osama bin Laden. We've put boots on the ground in Yemen where we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, just like Syria, but Corporatism's bread is buttered by Saudi Arabia's money. That would be tens billions of dollars of weapons orders and re-orders if it is being used up by war. Is this too much influence on what we do? Of course, but we suggest it is just capitalism. Japan is creating an offensive Military to supplement/replace the JDF (Japanese Defense Forces). Japan does the USA bidding so this is to have a de-stabilizing force in the South China and East China Seas. Another customer for Weapons supplied through Corporate USA and business is good. The USA never really acknowledges, even though we are the largest arms merchant in the World, the weapons require Wars for business to be good, and business is good, don't ya' know? Trump limits immigration from 7 Nations that we have bombed in the recent past allegedly to prevent terrorism, but doesn't include the World's most prolific terrorist supporters and generators Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan on the list. Does support for these Terrorist producing Nations work like a virus in our system? Influence what we do? Looks like hypocrisy, tastes like hypocrisy and has the bad smell of hypocrisy, eh?
This area is my pet peeve. There are many others.
/

 

[MickeyW]

How much influence should other countries have on what we do?

Two examples...

1) Most other first world countries do not have the death penalty, hence we should not have it, either, as that is the civilized approach. Libs agree with this, cons disagree with this.

2) Most other first world countries stringently monitor and limit immigration, and that makes perfect sense to control borders, hence we should do the same thing. Cons agree with this, libs disagree with this.

There are more examples, but these two examples perfectly illustrate the question. Is it just me, or does anyone else see the partisan and disingenuous cherry-picking? We only cite what others do when it suits our purpose. What "they" do is good when it falls in line with my thinking, but what "they" do is bad when it doesn't. No consistency.

How important is consistency? If we respect one's thinking on one topic, shouldn't we respect their line of thinking on all topics? I mean, they're either thoughtful and intelligent, or they're not, right? (Respect does not necessarily equal agreement, btw, but neither does it include outright dismissal.) Or, should we cherry pick the ones we like... which essentially means we don't respect any of then and we're going to do what we want anyway, and just trot out them doing it when it suits our purpose in debate?

None. Just like the UN should have no input in our affairs.