The Glade 4.0

I do every year.

_________________

Perhaps they're selling it on an "as-is" basis?

Elmarnieh:

And all of that is still irrelevant to the morality/ethicality/correctness of Xequecal's actions. Again, what vacates Xequecal's personal responsibility for his own choices and behavior?

_________________

"caveat emptor" pretty much covers it.

The guarantees and levels of compliance aren't secrets at all, just like entering into a contract with the devil - it's known to damn your soul, there's no legitimate reason to complain. You know what you're getting yourself into before you sign.

In this case specifically, X certainly knows. Entering into the agreement intending to ignore the conditions would show bad faith and a lack of integrity.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

How so? I don't see it simply because you state it. A contract requires good faith on the parts of both parties - we both seem to be in agreement here. If one party is known to be operating in bad faith (which you've stated for this point you agree with) then the requirements for a contract at all are not met. Since there is no contract it amounts to an immoral document attempting to constrain one party while the other is not constrained at all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

But entering into the agreement intending to ignore the conditions would not show bad faith or lack of integrity on the part of the government that makes this offer?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're still making a tu quoque fallacy, Elmo. The government's actions are immaterial. They do not matter and have no bearing on the ethics of Xequecal's action.

What vacates Xequecal's responsibility for his own actions? What grants him license to act in bad faith?

_________________

I think the solution is for Xeq to take the oath in good faith. Really mean it when you renounce your German citizenship. Then have a change of heart a week or two later.

Lets be clear here Khross, you believe that the government's actions are immaterial. I obviously do not share your belief.

As a contract is an agreement between multiple entities and since we've agreed that acting in bad faith destroys one of the requirements of a contract I fail to see how you can support the claim that one party's actions here are immaterial.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Oh sure he still retains responsibility for his own actions I am not pretending that he doesn't. I don't see there is any responsibility existing in any way when signing a document that has been pre-voided by the other entity.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're still classing the government as a single entity. While it may be reasonable to do this with a corporation which has a more top-down leadership, (and I know it fits your world view of "The Man" keeping you down, taking your rights, etc) the US Government is not monolithic. You are claiming that because some small portion of the federal institution violates your rights then you are entitled to not uphold your half of the citizenship contract. You're not even claiming that YOUR rights are being violated, simply the nebulous claim that "Someone" is having their right's violated, by some portion of the US Gov, ergo you're free from any obligation to enter the contract in good faith.

If I sign a contract to buy land from John, just because John defrauds Mike on a similar contract, I do NOT have the right to withdraw from my own.

It's not a belief, Elmo. The government's actions are not material to the consequences of Xequecal's decision. Again, we've already stated that these things are a known quantity at the time of action. Xequecal is choosing to act with this information. He is choosing to assume responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

_________________

The way I'm starting to look at this is this:

The US denies basic human rights to non-citizens.
If Xeq doesn't want his basic human rights violated, the US Govt gives him no choice other than to take an oath he doesn't believe in.
Therefore, they are forcing him to take the oath.

If Xeq wants to take that oath and then appeal to Germany afterwards and get them to nullify his oath since it was made under duress, I don't see any problem with that.

This is true. However, since the consequences appear to be ... uh...he gets to keep both citizenships with no negative side effects...then that's really not relevant, is it?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It doesn't



He's facing no such dilemma



Does not follow, since no basic human right is in peril.



No duress of any kind or description has been described

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe the intent of the German law is that it does consider forcing one to renounce their citizenship in order to obtain a new citizenship to be "duress." Whether or not you consider it duress, this is the intent of their law (or whatever it is), therefore he'd be using it properly.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Okay Diamondeye, I get it. You disagree with the basic premise of my argument, you don't have to go through and quote my whole post reiterating that fact. =P

I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you otherwise, but here goes.

Non-citizens can be declared terrorists, shipped overseas, and tortured. All with no due process. I believe that's a pretty major rights violation.

The oath itself is not considered duress, what is considered duress is, "We're going to exclude you from a significant portion of the job market unless you renounce all ties to Germany."

None of these has been denied to Xecqual, nor does he face them, nor does it regularly do any of these things to non-citizens in general. Your basic premise is at odds with the facts, even assuming that "basic human rights" includes protection from the policies of countries you aren't a citizen of in the first place, the fact of the matter is that Xeq is not in ny maningful danger of being abruptly deported and tortured if he does not take this oath. A) he can leave and B) hundereds of thousands, even millions of foriegners live here. What fraction have even been in danger of this, much less had it actually happen?

Your basic premise is simply at odds with the facts. There is the remote possibility that somehow Xeq might get caught up in something like that, but it is so small as to be irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Surely it is a belief. As you believe one thing and I believe another. You cannot make granite by simply calling sand "granite".

I don't know how you can say that the government's actions are not material to the consequences of his decisions I would say the must be. If the implied consequences of the contract were not an issue why have one at all, if the implied consequences won't come about again what worth is it?

Xeq is choosing to act knowing that the contract has been pre-voided by the actions of the other party. There is no contract - there cannot be by the definition of the term.

If I were to find a man who I know already abuses me but promises to abuse me less if I sign a contract (and I know it will have no direct relationship to my abuse but I know that an unrelated 3rd part will give me a free sandwich if I do) and the contract stipulates that these non-existant protections from abuse will be void if I don't follow the clause of dressing like a clown on Tuesdays...

Am I behaving immorally if I sign the "contract" knowing I will never dress like a clown on Tuesdays?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

We've already been long past the point where its shown the organizations act as separate entities TheRiov. Fast forward from 2009 please.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes.

_________________

Ok I disagree entirely. I can't even find what I consider a rational base from which to start defending your position.

There is no contract, there can't be so there isn't even something as subjective as honor involved.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

It's really simple: Don't lie. Of course, I'll assume since you've changed your mind on abortion?

_________________

So to you lying is always immoral? Oh ok to me it isn't. That was pretty easily settled.

I'll entertain this though - no I haven't.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville