Ukraine Crisis

[Walker]

Are 7 billions humans really just going to sit back and let a couple of arsehole 'leader types' on an ego trip destroy the only home they have? Probably

Mebbe so.

The story just might be gettin' away from them: the scripted Big Bad might actually be Big & Bad.

Totally amazing.

The world ends, when it does
Not by bang or whimper
Not by fire or ice
The world ends by idiots.

[henry quirk]

there are no reporters on the front lines

Last time I checked in with the usual outlets, no, none of them had embedded anyone.

[henry quirk]

The world ends by idiots.

It ain't over till the sun comes out at midnight, and mushrooms sprout on the horizon.

[iambiguous]

How then does that change your thinking about "the right thing to do"?

It doesn't.

Actually, this doesn't surprise me. Though new here, from what I've read of your posts, you strike me as a moral and political objectivist.

That's someone who [to me], in regard to the Ukraine conflict or to any good well-known moral/political conflagration that generates media headlines, is convinced that they are at one with the Real Me wholly in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

Whereas I believe that individual value judgments are largely existential fabrications rooted subjectively in dasein. Re the manner in which I describe my own in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever admitted to yourself that you were wrong about an issue as consequential as the Ukraine crises? Most objectivists never do. Why? Because once they have admitted they were wrong before they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about something now.

Their whole psychology revolves around being able to ground their Self -- Soul? -- in the objective truth. Their own. That way they can neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

It's not what they believe about Ukraine but that what they do believe is thought to be that which all rational and virtuous people are obligated to believe in turn.

It's the "fractured and fragmented" identity in the is/ought world that most perturbs them about me. What if their own precious self-righteous Self begins to...crumble.

As mine did when Mary aborted her fetus in the link above.

Another thread perhaps?

[henry quirk]

you strike me as a moral and political objectivist.

I prefer moral realist and natural rights libertarian, but whatever floats your boat.

[iambiguous]

you strike me as a moral and political objectivist.

I prefer moral realist and natural rights libertarian, but whatever floats your boat.

What floats my boat is the extent to which, in regard to the Ukraine conflict, you are able to describe in some detail the distinction you make between "a moral realist and natural rights libertarian" and the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist above.

For example, are you willing to acknowledge that given a new experience, a new relationship and/or access to new information and knowledge about the Ukraine conflict, you might change your mind about it.

Or, as with the objectivists, are your convictions basically rock solid?

Can you note examples of you having changed your mind about a consequential moral/political issue in the past?

And, if you can note examples, aren't you acknowledging that, in turn, you may well be wrong about things you believe "here and now"? Can't the Ukraine conflict be one of them?

[Walker]

How can a single man with such a small chin and an almost perfectly round head, have the whole world on the edge of its seat?

If this fuckin guy doesn't do sumthin and do it soon, I've got the good nerve to call him myself and straighten shit out ova there.

You shouldn't have called him. You pushed him over the edge.

*

“These are the folks who worked tirelessly to drive America insane since 2016 and now they’re capping their ‘hat-trick’ of mind-fuckery with the specter of World War Three. Notice how neatly their engineered mass formation psychosis segued from Trump/Russia to Covid-19 and now the threat of going nuclear over Ukraine. My theory of the case would be as follows: America’s Deep State provoked Russia in Ukraine to cover up its own massive crimes against American citizens which now verge on being fully exposed.”

James Howard Kunstler
https://thebluestateconservative.com/20 ... -come-out/

*

Brandon can go ahead fire his food taster. Kamala wants no part of this hot kitchen. Wayheyhey over her head. But, she is historic as the first woman/Asian/Indian/woman-of-color VP in the history of the United States who is still living and can inspire the little children that their dreams can come true, even dreams of mask-freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNH5Yq3Q7o

[promethean75]

The CIA could have hit Putin with the Havana syndrome, which could explain the erratic behavior. Perhaps the end game is to disintegrate Russia and split the land up between NATO countries.

[Walker]

This is so meaningless and bizarre, could it be a completely fabricated video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNH5Yq3Q7o

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is so meaningless and bizarre, could it be a completely fabricated video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNH5Yq3Q7o

What an unbearable phony, and that voice. Someone please scrape their nails on a blackboard to drown it out! Why do Americans think they have to 'act' as if they are in a movie? Don't they know that 'movie' acting is over the top, just as stage acting is WAY over the top? It doesn't mean that people actually behave like that in real life (or EVER should).

[henry quirk]

What floats my boat is the extent to which, in regard to the Ukraine conflict, you are able to describe in some detail the distinction you make between "a moral realist and natural rights libertarian" and the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist above.

Here, chew on this...

The part of your commentary, about "matter of conscience, not data", is the part that grabbed me. You're basically saying that people aren't influenced by data, I think.

What I'm sayin' is: you don't have to be a perfect analyst or have perfect information to assess, for example, the Ukraine incursion.

Some say Putin is justified; some say he isn't but all are assessn' based on the false notion The State is legitimate.

Russia is justified cuz of NATO encroachments; Russia is not justified cuz of Ukraine's national sovereignty, in other words: several iterations of The State vy for status among themselves and to hell with what individuals think about it.

No, the individual, is expected to rally behind his party or faction or government, and never mind that he might *not give a flyin' flip as to to the agendas of any iteration of The State.

If time weren't 24 hours long, but say were 10 hours long, it would make sense that a much greater percentage of the Ukrainian population would find it logical to just let the Russian army take over the Ukraine.

Not seein' how the length of the day has anything to do with it. And, in the same way The State is illegitimate, so is this Ukrainian population. Each person has got to decide what he's gonna do in the face of an aggressor ...doesn't matter if it's cops bustin' down the door at 3am under cover of a no-knock warrant, or a sociopath crossin' into the country with his military, or a thief who waylays you in the park demandin' your wallet...the principle is the same: you are your own. The cops, the sociopath, the thief, they all violate you. Defend yourself, or not. The choice is yours.



*which is distinctly different from bein' aware of those agendas so as to navigate around them

[iambiguous]

What floats my boat is the extent to which, in regard to the Ukraine conflict, you are able to describe in some detail the distinction you make between "a moral realist and natural rights libertarian" and the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist above.

Here, chew on this...

The part of your commentary, about "matter of conscience, not data", is the part that grabbed me. You're basically saying that people aren't influenced by data, I think.

What I'm sayin' is: you don't have to be a perfect analyst or have perfect information to assess, for example, the Ukraine incursion.

Some say Putin is justified; some say he isn't but all are assessn' based on the false notion The State is legitimate.

Russia is justified cuz of NATO encroachments; Russia is not justified cuz of Ukraine's national sovereignty, in other words: several iterations of The State vy for status among themselves and to hell with what individuals think about it.

No, the individual, is expected to rally behind his party or faction or government, and never mind that he might *not give a flyin' flip as to to the agendas of any iteration of The State.

If time weren't 24 hours long, but say were 10 hours long, it would make sense that a much greater percentage of the Ukrainian population would find it logical to just let the Russian army take over the Ukraine.

Not seein' how the length of the day has anything to do with it. And, in the same way The State is illegitimate, so is this Ukrainian population. Each person has got to decide what he's gonna do in the face of an aggressor ...doesn't matter if it's cops bustin' down the door at 3am under cover of a no-knock warrant, or a sociopath crossin' into the country with his military, or a thief who waylays you in the park demandin' your wallet...the principle is the same: you are your own. The cops, the sociopath, the thief, they all violate you. Defend yourself, or not. The choice is yours.

*which is distinctly different from bein' aware of those agendas so as to navigate around them

Frankly, I don't see what that has to do with this...

What floats my boat is the extent to which, in regard to the Ukraine conflict, you are able to describe in some detail the distinction you make between "a moral realist and natural rights libertarian" and the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist above.

For example, are you willing to acknowledge that given a new experience, a new relationship and/or access to new information and knowledge about the Ukraine conflict, you might change your mind about it.

Or, as with the objectivists, are your convictions basically rock solid?

Can you note examples of you having changed your mind about a consequential moral/political issue in the past?

And, if you can note examples, aren't you acknowledging that, in turn, you may well be wrong about things you believe "here and now"? Can't the Ukraine conflict be one of them?

That's why I suggest we take the manner in which we acquire moral and political value judgments themselves to a new thread.

After all, to speak of a less than perfect analysis or information, suggest that there is a perfection to be attained. Why yours?

As for self-defense, sure, what you note makes sense. Reminds me somewhat of this: https://youtu.be/XA9LNlsGah8

But the Ukraine conflict goes way, way beyond that. It revolves around fundamental differences regarding how the world works. Putin could be said to reflect the "might makes right" school of thought.

Then there are those "right makes might" sorts who insist the government in Ukraine can only truly be democratic -- moral? -- if, issue by issue, its policies are wholly in sync with their own political prejudices.

Then the "democracy and the rule of law" approach. The "moderation, negotiation and compromise" political agenda. What some call the "best of all possible worlds".

[henry quirk]

Frankly, I don't see what that has to do with this.

Okay.

[iambiguous]

Frankly, I don't see what that has to do with this.

Okay.

Okay right back at you.

[henry quirk]

But the Ukraine conflict goes way, way beyond that. It revolves around fundamental differences regarding how the world works. Putin could be said to reflect the "might makes right" school of thought.

Nope. This war is the same as any other: an iteration of The State vys with an iteration of The State. You aren't privy to it, but you're expected to support and mebbe die for the particular faction, party, or iteration of The State that lays claim to you.

You feel moved to pick a side. I tell you: all iterations of The State are illegitimate and none have a claim on you.

But, as I say, you are yours: do with yourself as you think best.