Who Won: Bush or Castro? A Look at Their Impact on Society

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter flotsam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the contrasting impacts of George W. Bush and Fidel Castro on society, with participants debating their legacies. Key points include the assertion that Cuba, despite its flaws, has better child mortality rates than the U.S., and that both leaders represent corrupt institutions. Participants argue that Castro prioritized social welfare while Bush is seen as a proponent of imperialism. The conversation highlights the complexities of freedom and equality, emphasizing that both leaders have significant shortcomings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of political ideologies, particularly socialism and imperialism.
  • Familiarity with the historical context of U.S.-Cuba relations.
  • Knowledge of child mortality statistics and their implications for societal health.
  • Insight into the concepts of freedom and equality in political discourse.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical impact of Fidel Castro's policies on Cuban society.
  • Examine the effects of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, particularly during the Bush administration.
  • Analyze child mortality rates in Cuba versus the United States and their societal implications.
  • Explore the philosophical debates surrounding freedom and equality in political theory.
USEFUL FOR

Political scientists, historians, students of international relations, and anyone interested in the socio-political dynamics of Cuba and the United States.

  • #31
Smurf said:
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free. I think it's you who has the burden of proof to show that they're different or opposed to each other.

Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..

Anttech said:
eh? So if everyone is free, then everyone will be equal?
This is in contridiction with Evolution.. The strongest, fittest and most well adapted survive..

So in a nongovermental raw animal situation like for example in the perhistoric man situation would you say everyone was equal although they were totally free from any outside influences that we today have? I would say nope

Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesn't equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.
 
  • #33
X-43D said:
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.

Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.
 
  • #34
Besides, it's hard to see what's "unnatural" about man-made institutions. Is man not a part of nature? It's also a little difficult to think of capitalism as a man-made institution. All it is is the lack of state regulation of commercial transactions, leaving all details to the privately negotiated contracts between buyer and seller. It's the items exchanged that are man-made.
 
  • #35
Anttech said:
Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..



Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesn't equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
  • #36
selfAdjoint said:
Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.

They were tribal or clanish but there were no laws which protected money ownership. There was no market system.
 
  • #37
Smurf said:
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Fair enough... I suppose it was extemly complex :-p
 

Similar threads

News Bush's Re-Election Bid Looking Good: A Look at the Numbers
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
News Do Some Americans Worship George W. Bush?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K