Ukraine Crisis

[Dontaskme]

What a ridiculous world. We have two old men holding the future of the planet in their hands

I read some report yesterday that the Siberian part of Russia have built nuclear bomb proof underground cities. Which does not surprise me considering how vast the country of Russia is.

[Age]

Also, because of 'generational child abuse' ALL of 'you', adult human beings, have a BELIEF that; "If MY RULES a 'disobeyed', then you WILL BE PUNISHED".

'you', adults, HAVE and HOLD this BELIEF and SAY this, now, because this is what 'you' ALL CONTINUALLY heard as children.

When 'you' STOP BELIEVING, "If you do NOT do as I TELL YOU, then you WILL BE PUNISHED", then those that ARE 'above you' WILL EVENTUALLY STOP having and HOLDING 'this BELIEF', ALSO.

For your sincere offerings, you deserve some attention-time on that frequency.

Interesting. I’ve also discovered a variation of this exact quoted thought, in the past. Since you discovered the thought, and I discovered the gist independently of you, I figure most everyone else has also discovered it. Thus the variable is what gets done with it, attention-wise, and philosophically.

There are exceptions, of course. It’s a tendency that doesn’t apply to every relationship interaction within the parent/child relationship, of course. Some parents rarely use bunker-buster persuasion, but to your point yes, it is used.

But this isn’t really the focus of your comment, is it. Your point is larger, and it involves the principle.

*

The thing is, this tendency you describe isn’t just from parent to child. The adult parent doesn’t drop the principle just because the methods that are used on a child, which can be blunt force after persuasion and patience fails, are different than methods used in the rest of the adult’s daily life.

The adult parent continues to use the principle on other adults, applied according to methods determined by the receiving adult’s capacity to be affected.

The principle is also used among nations, the method determined by its effectiveness. This I think, is your focus, considering the situation of the thread title.

What is the principle? It’s simple, of course. True principles are simple. The principle is, NO.

As you describe, all parents use the principle in child-rearing to varying degrees, sometimes needlessly. That’s the purest form of the principle, clearly obvious, stripped down, and applied during the formative years. And, you are correct in that it becomes ingrained, although you didn’t express it exactly as such. NO becomes a habit, and it is a bounded view of reality. The boundary is arbitrary.

Adult to adult, NO is called invalidation and permeates or flavours most every interaction. NO will work its way into every conversation if the conversation lasts more than a few clichés and sound bites, and certainly it’s active in those tuned to debate and attempts to scientifically falsify an hypothesis.

Depending on the nature of the relationship, invalidation, which is the adult method of applying the NO Principle, can be called contrariness, verbal jousting, trash talk, debate, Socratic-dialogue-applied-to-legal-truth-seeking, libel, slander, and so on. It can be called self-sabotage. It can even be called transmission-sabotage by making the vehicle of the message less than transparent when known alternatives are available.

I think you have MISSED my 'point'. But anyway, ...

The principle of invalidation is woven into the fabric of modern life. Those who always agree grow weary of the peace.

But absolutely NO one could ALWAYS 'agree'. So, the rest does NOT follow.

Conflict is essential to growth. Pressure creates the diamond. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. And so on.

Therefore, new born babies and young children can NOT 'grow' because they do NOT have 'conflict', correct?

Nation-to-Nation? Invalidation is also conducted, in Nation-to-Nation methods. In the extreme, War.

This is why deal makers who know the psychology of the deal make good presidents.

Like the one called "donald trump" made a 'good president', correct?

They’re not warriors out to conquer other nations, which is how they are viewed by those licensed to inspect from arm-chairs, and couches when the chair grows too small, inspectors who are conditioned from childhood to The Principle of Invalidation, that permeates so much of life, and is reinforced by so much media commentary passing itself off as news in airports, public places, and even government-school classrooms.

Deal makers are out for the Win-Win.
They build infrastructure. Civilization.
They are not destroyers or conquerors.

Some can even make Deal-Making into such an Art, so that peace and prosperity reign during their tenure.

"Bring back the trump", hey "walker"?

Pity, though, "he" could NOT 'make-the-deal' to become a so-called "president" again.

[Age]

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.

You know, whatever that means.

As for "picking a side" here, I'm sticking with dasein. You pick the one you were brainwashed as a child to pick and/or the one that, subjectively, given your own accumulation of "personal experiences", you were predisposed existentially to pick.

Then there are those who think up things like "an iteration of The State vys with an iteration of The State" to explain...what exactly?

Again, whatever, for all practical purposes, that even means.

Anyone here willing to hazard a guess?

I think "henry quirk" is just saying that 'states/governments/"leaders"/countries" can and do fight among themselves, BUT ONLY 'you' own you. NO one else does, including "states/governments/"leaders"/countries".

And, you can do WHATEVER 'you' want to do with 'you'. But, do NOT do ANY 'thing' 'you' want with "another".

Which is VERY GOOD and Right, in a sense, but this way of 'thinking' completely MISSES the Fact that SOME can NOT make these choices and DO NEED "others" to 'TAKE CONTROL' OVER 'them', and FOR 'them'.

This way of 'thinking' also NEGLECTS to SEE and UNDERSTAND that EVERY one is either a "slave", or a "slaver", as some call 'them'. What is ALSO NEGLECTED, in this way of 'thinking', is the Fact that EVERY one NEEDS someone ELSE.

But if ANY or ALL of that 'guess' is Wrong, then PLEASE Correct it, "henry quirk".

Explain what you think it means and then note how it informs your own political prejudices regarding Ukraine.

Finally, it's not what we think is best here that most fascinates me. Instead, it's how, existentially, we come to think one thing rather than another.

The reason EVERY one 'thinks' the way they do, is SOLELY because of the previous past experiences of an individual body.

This is, literally, WHY EVERY 'one' is an individual.

And then the extent to which philosophers, ethicists and political scientists, using the tools at their disposal, are or are not able to come up with the most rational and virtuous frame of mind that there can ever possibly be.

There is ONLY One Mind. This Mind is ALWAYS and COMPLETELY OPEN. The Mind is ALWAYS in this 'frame', which, by the way, is the 'most rational and virtuous frame' that could ever possibly be.

This is the MOST rational and virtuous frame ANY one else can be IN, ALSO.

The objective moral and political truth about Ukraine. And, for some, the objective spiritual truth in turn.

What the objective Truth is, about "ukraine", is that it is the word provided and used for 'a' parcel of land.

The objective 'moral' Truth about "ukraine" is that to abuse "ukraine", and/or its occupants, IS what is Wrong in Life, and conversely to NOT misuse, or abuse, "ukraine", and/or its occupants, IS what is Right in Life.

[Walker]

Pity, though, "he" could NOT 'make-the-deal' to become a so-called "president" again.

Whatever happened, had to happen.
Whatever is happening, must be happening.
Whatever happens, must happen.
Thought becomes happening for folks, and nations.
Happening becomes hopping, for bunny wabbits.

[Walker]

I think you have MISSED my 'point'. But anyway, ...

Resistance is futile.

[henry quirk]

I think "henry quirk" is just saying that 'states/governments/"leaders"/countries" can and do fight among themselves, BUT ONLY 'you' own you. NO one else does, including "states/governments/"leaders"/countries".

Yes, and also that one is not obligated to take a side in this, of any other conflict, between governments (those iterations of The State).

for you, Age...

What the objective Truth is, about "ukraine", is that it is the word provided and used for 'a' parcel of land.

Yep.

[commonsense]

WHO, in what is (wrongly) called "right mind" would write things like; ' 'you', human beings ', ' in the days when this was being written ', and/or ' could NOT YET SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY '?

What do 'you' think or ENVISION would be the reason of WHY I write THE WAY I DO?

I think you write the way you do because your brain is hardwired to enjoy pissing off everyone it can by being what it believes is cute without concern for what others think as long as they are annoyed by the unconventional way in which you write and think, so to SPEAK.

Is "your" 'brain' 'hardwired' to think and say what 'it' does here? Or, is it just the individual 'brain', in this body, that is so-called 'hardwired' to think and speak in the particular way 'it' does?

Also, instead of 'thinking' 'things' and one wants to KNOW 'things', then just asking for CLARITY I found is one way to LEARN and KNOW.

1. This 'brain' does NOT 'believe' ANY 'thing'. So, if this was meant to be the 'cause', then this is just Wrong.

2. I write, in a particular way, for the REASONS that I have ALREADY EXPLAINED. And NONE of those reasons include "pissing off" ANY one at all.

3. If 'you', or ANY one else, "gets", (or more correctly, 'feels'), ANNOYED, then is it REALLY 'me' who is CONTROLLING 'this' ALSO? Do you REALLY think or BELIEVE that it is I who has this much POWER over 'you', that I CAN CONTROL how each one of 'you' feels, and thinks?

To make it absolutely CLEAR here, I do NOT write to so-call "piss" ANY one off.

Let me put 'this' this way for 'you'.

Imagine someone came to SEE and UNDERSTAND that the earth actually revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, but EVERY one else besides that one BELIEVES otherwise.

Now, instead of just trying to SHOW and REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, which takes such a long time, and which some people will for centuries later STILL NOT believe what has ALREADY been PROVED True anyway, I just SHOW and REVEAL HOW ANY one can FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS all by "their" OWN 'selves'. Although this does take a 'long time' also, it WILL, eventually, change 'things' for the BETTER, forever more.

Part of this process of CHANGE involves SHOWING and REVEALING, through ACTUAL PROOF, how human beings USED to 'think' and 'mis/behave'. I write, the way I do, for THIS REASON. I am NOT writing to "piss ANY one off". I write USING 'you', posters, here to SHOW and REVEAL HOW and WHY 'people', back in "those days", were just NOT OPEN to what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' ACTUALLY IS. Just like the people, back in "those days", when they would NOT LISTEN, NOT ACCEPT, and NOT AGREE with thee ACTUAL Truth that it is ACTUALLY the earth that revolves around the sun.

By the way, some people do get, what is called, "pissed off" when what they BELIEVE is true is being continually explained is NOT true AT ALL.

To SHOW how to PREVENT the Wrong way of 'thinking' and 'misbehaving' EVER AGAIN, I write in a PARTICULAR WAY. That is; instead of just trying to TELL 'you', posters, what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, I just USE 'you' to SHOW to 'future readers', HOW and WHY 'you', posters, back in "those days", would NOT LISTEN, and so could NOT HEAR, NOR SEE, thee ACTUAL Truth, to REVEAL what NOT to do in the future, and from NOW ON.

It is said, 'For effective writing one has to understand and/or know your audience'. The 'audience' I am writing FOR is NOT necessarily 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written. I am writing for the 'audience' who has been PREPARED, and thus Truly Honest and OPEN, which, as can be SEEN, is NOT YET 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this being written.

QED

[commonsense]

And you KNOW this HOW, EXACTLY?

The post starts with thinking, not with knowing.

If you HAD CLARIFIED, then you would have LEARNED, and KNOWN, what I was referring to, EXACTLY.

Anyway, the author naturally knows her own thoughts.

Was ANY one suggesting otherwise?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

You—8 lines up.

[promethean75]

What's the orangutan saying now that over a thousand Ukrainians (mostly civilians?) have died? Two weeks ago he wuz praising Putin. Is he saying anything now, or is he suddenly silent? Somebody go check his tweets out and get back to me or not.

[promethean75]

Alls I know is those fuckin Russians better not blow Clarissa Ward up while she's over there reporting. She's so hot with that bullet proof flak jacket and swat helmet on.

[promethean75]

Little Finland is joining the European effort to help finance and send weapons to Ukrainians now. Good shit, man.

I believe the Satumaa is in order to commemorate the occasion.

Salute!

[promethean75]

Lol how does your convoy run out of gas and food not even halfway to Kyiv?

At this moment we need Monty Python more than ever. Nobody could do a better skit of what is happening right now at the Kremlin between Putin, his advisors and his generals.

[iambiguous]

From the NYT:

"Lulu Garcia-Navarro: Overhanging all of this, of course, is that this is a nuclear power that we’re talking about. This is to all three of you. Fiona Hill, the Russia expert and Trump impeachment witness, said, and I’m summarizing here, we are already in World War III, we just haven’t realized it yet. I mean, terrifying. True? Tom, let’s start with you.

Thomas L. Friedman: I’m not sure what that means or that it’s particularly helpful. What I would say, Lulu, is that there’s only one thing more dangerous than a strong Putin, and that’s a weak Putin — a Putin on the ropes. And I still hope, and I doubt he’d start throwing around nuclear weapons. But it’s not clear what he’s going to do and what he can unleash here. So I’m quite worried about that. But World War III — I’m not quite there yet myself."

Ross Douthat: And now we’re back in that dynamic where it becomes incredibly important to have these, what can seem in the punditry game that we all practice like these sort of arbitrary lines. Like we will fight absolutely for Lithuania. But we will not intervene for Ukraine. We will arm people killing Russians. But we will do nothing that seems to threaten to kill Russians ourselves.

But all of that line drawing was absolutely essential to the management of nuclear escalation. And that’s what we’re back in right now. And, yes, I think saying we’re already in World War III misses how important it is not to be.

That's the imponderable potential, right? To the extent the West puts Putin on the ropes in pouring in arms to the Ukrainians and in tanking the Russian economy, it really might come down to what unfolds inside Putin's head. One head, but the fate of the world itself could hang in the balance.

[Dontaskme]

UK's DailyMail top headline and photo's today report...Young distressed Russian Soldiers crying for their mother.

How much more abuse are we going to tolerate before we wake up and realise what a stupid game we are playing here on earth. But no, lets just throw one more child on the BBQ for shits and giggles.

I'm ashamed to call myself a human.

I know a good idea, lets breed a bunch of male children just so that they can have their brains splattered to pulp. Yeah, now that's a career worthy of envy. It's disgusting.

[Age]

The post starts with thinking, not with knowing.

If you HAD CLARIFIED, then you would have LEARNED, and KNOWN, what I was referring to, EXACTLY.

Anyway, the author naturally knows her own thoughts.

Was ANY one suggesting otherwise?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

You—8 lines up.

"8 lines up" from WHERE, EXACTLY?

Talk about writing to annoy "others".

JUST PICK OUT the LINE and PRESENT IT or QUOTE IT. How hard can it REALLY be?