RIP Fidel Castro

Wonder how many innocent men have been executed by the legal system in the US during Castro's reign.

__________________

Fewer than the number of people he had killed for the mere act of disagreeing with him. And all of them without due process or the right of appeal. Except for that time he literally invented an appeals process after a result he didn't like so he could execute the people who were found innoncent.

There is no equivalence here, in nature or numbers.

Yeah, when someone murders their political opponents, "quirky" is definitely the first word that comes to mind.

Was this the main crime that Batista committed? He was more guilty of the first himself, for a start.

__________________

No, that was in reference to matt's comments about Bush and Obama. Not that what Bush, Obama, or Batista did has any relevance in assessing Castro.

Freedom is subjective.

Right or wrong, people see different ways of their people being more free and how to go about such a system. In his view he made people more free overall through his regime, and that had that had it been different more people would have suffered overall, even if not directly. He did a lot of wrong things that I can not support, and he admits to some of them, but I think he had good intentions in believing that if he didn't the consequences would be greater. But he also did a lot of good, how about healthcare, education and noble causes that he supported around the world?

Please, keep going. Is freedom of speech subjective? Freedom of the press? Freedom of association? How about due process? Because he violated all of these. He violated them flagrantly, blatantly, and constantly.

The second one.

Again, see above, and my earlier posts in this thread. This is not some nuanced question about what value freedom has to the poor, or whether people can be better off sacrificing economic freedom for some greater social welfare. This is literally murdering people for disagreeing with you.

Yes, I know what his view was (or what he says it was). I'm asking about your view: did he make people "more free overall" by depriving them of all the rights I mentioned above?

Good intentions. I wonder what we can pave with that.

Leaving aside how good their actual healthcare system was (spoiler: not very), are you suggesting you'd trade the rights mentioned above for socialized healthcare? And are you saying people should not be allowed to decide, democratically, to make this choice for themselves? Because that's what Castro did.

Just so long as you read what they tell you.

The point it, people talk about freedom, but even in countries where freedom is a priority and meant to be in large amounts, you still have to live within the structural boundaries that exist before you are born regardless of whether you accept them or not, and they determine just how much freedom you have.

How do we rank what is important in terms of being free, how is this determined? It's just preselected for the illusion of freedom.

But these are chosen as the things people should be entitled to because the country allowed them to be. Where is this rule that every country should automatically have them or they are bad?

Okay, so you are going to say that if left to a democrat vote people will vote for these as the majority of humans consider them to be basic rights, and I would be one of them, but they are restricted by Castro and his government because they believe that if left to be "free" they will be exploited by certain forces that will use them to overthrow him, he didn't want people to swoop in, maybe outside forces like the USA, and destroy his "good" work.

How about freedom of movement, access to a home as a human right, access to healthcare as a human right, these things? Why aren't they held in such high regard as freedom of speech or freedom of press? Because we are taught that they are not important and fundamental aspects of being in the same way.

A lot of people would disagree with you though.

I do not think this is the reason why he murdered them though. You think he just wanted to kill them for the fact they disagreed with him? Or the greater implications that if opposition was afforded the opportunity to grow, external forces would soon be able to swoop in and overthrow him. He attempted to participate in legitimate elections and such earlier on in his life and had seen a US backed government suppress him, so he was attempting to do the reverse.

It's difficult to say because it's impossible to know absolutely everything about both his intentions, and exactly what he did.

What I will say is that I think if he lived longer, hypothetically lets say 50 healthy years more, it would have been more interesting to see what he would do post-Cold War. Once his position had been consolidated, international relations cooled and such, I think it could have been likely that reforms would make the country more democratic and give more rights to the people. I would say, admittedly hesitantly, that he did a good job of improving the country.

I'm not sure how correct "not very" is, but I'm pretty sure they had an important role in the Ebola crisis, they've been successful in getting rid of a number of diseases. Also stuff like infant mortality and that have decreased massively, life expectancies increased, clean water etc.

[quot]are you suggesting you'd trade the rights mentioned above for socialized healthcare? And are you saying people should not be allowed to decide, democratically, to make this choice for themselves? Because that's what Castro did.[/quote]I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to decide, and it's not what I would have done. But I think it's understandable giving the circumstances.

Okay. But what about stuff like them now having one of the highest literacy rates in the world?

Well, in a country reigned by a dictator any opposition has to be nipped in the bud. All political opponents have to be throttled. Simply because any concurrent party, idea or opponent constitutes a threat of coup d'etat, rebellion, or some other jeopardy. So, any and every dictator uses terror to suppress both non-existent and existent threats, precisely in fear of losing power as well as to strengthen it.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Sorry if my posts are filled with a load of spelling mistakes, but I'm really tired and will probably go off soon.

Another question for people, what do think of people like Nelson Mandela and many others, when they see them praising Castro?

Fidel stood up to the mighty US, and lived. He also refused to give up his communist ideals, which is why many revere him as a "brave & heroic revolutionist". He survived 8 assassination attempts in the 60s and he outlived every US President that tried to have him killed. He may be dead now but no matter how you feel about him, he won in the end.

__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp

I think freedom from being arbitrarily murdered by your own government should be pretty high on the list, since being dead has a way of cutting off your ability to exercise any other freedoms.

So, basically, your position is that there's no such thing as human rights?

Yeah, I'm not asking you to play devil's advocate here. I'm not asking you about his intentions (though I find your interpretation of them highly credulous, given the obvious benefits to himself). I'm asking you to defend the idea that he was a good leader who helped his people, rather than one who consistently oppressed them.

He forbid people from leaving the country and sometimes murdered them and their families for trying. So, knowing that, is this freedom suddenly moved to the list of "subjective" freedoms we only like because we're taught to?

Because any "freedom" that only exists at the whim of a dictator isn't really a freedom at all. Therefore, the freedoms held in the highest esteem are the one which safeguard all the others. It's not arbitrary, and it's not just a cultural inclination: it's literally the only prioritization that prevents tyranny.

The difference being, my ideology says I should let them disagree, and theirs says they should be allowed to kill me if they think I'm persuading people with my arguments.

Which side of that do you take? And how many social welfare programs do they have to favor before you switch to the other side and say maybe killing me is worth it?

This is literally just another way of saying "he killed them for protesting because he was afraid they would persuade people."

First: he promised free elections, which means at minimum he was lying about what kind of government he planned to install.

Second, is this really supposed to explain why he didn't hold free elections in 50 years?

His intentions have nothing to do with the question. I am asking you to assess the results of his decisions: do you think he made the Cuban people "more free overall" by denying them the right to free speech, to a free press, to free assembly, to due process, and so on, in the name of socialized medicine?

He was in charge for 50 years! Your argument is that what he did was reasonable because it might have worked if he'd only been allowed to oppress people for another half-century?

You know, I'll bet I could convince people I was doing a good job if I killed the people who said I was doing a bad job.

Infant morality is affected heavily by what you count as a newborn to begin with, for one. And it's a little difficult to take such statistics seriously coming from a government that claims, with a straight face, that Castro regularly receives 100% of the vote.

As I indicated in my last response, I think that's of dubious value when you're controlling what people are allowed to read.

If you think a higher literacy rate justifies what Castro did, the obvious question is: why did he have to stop people from leaving? Tens of thousands of Cubans literally risked their lives (and many died) just for the chance of not living there any more. It doesn't take much humility to decide that it must not have been a very good deal, given the actions of the people who it was forced on.

What did he win?

Heres a true fact that doesnt get much press, Americans could take boat rides from Miami into Cuba, on their own in their own boats, and party like rockstars. They could bring household products, and normal grocery items into the country for women to have sex. It is not a rare occurence, they would go into their nighclubs, and take their pick which woman theyd buy for the night.

They were living in complete poverty, and it doesnt help that every hurricane that goes into the Gulf of Mexico has to hit Cuba first. With the way every cuban I know is reacting, that knows about what it is were talking about, I have to think now its only good news that hes gone.

I honestly do not know what to make of that. I just dont. Obviously he wasnt the devil incarnate.

My only regret was that I was not in Miami for the party.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Fidel great? Even Hitler was better. At least he was macho enough to kill himself when his ideology was defeated.

Fidel was a feudal lord of a poor island country and just helped to make the place worse off. Why is he considered great? Just another crappy 3rd world dictator who claims to be populist. He is only famous because of the fact his regime was near the US's.

Treason is punishable by death in the US too... The Cuban people have been so repressed so much (US Embargo) - if only they could have access to CNN free speech!

Yeah, treason as in giving out military secrets, spying, etc, not criticizing/disagreeing with your leader or half of America would be on Death Row. I'm staying out of this but that was a ridiculous comparison.

It's been really depressing watching people excuse and normalize human rights atrocities just because they were committed by someone on Team Socialism.

Rest in pieces, Castro.