Ukraine Crisis

[promethean75]

"C'mon, guy, you know what I mean: lie today to get aid, be found out tomorrow, the day after get only a cold shoulder when aid is really needed."

Bro I know what yer sayin... but it's an example of one of those maxims that doesn't, and won't, ever be upheld universally, so it only stands as a general principle.

Like Kant's universal maxim about doing only what, if it became a universal law for everyone, would be the best thing to do.

Okay but when I'm deciding whether or not to throw my empty cup out the window while I'm driving, I'm not gonna not throw it out because if everyone threw their cups out the window, there'd be trash all ova the frickin place.

Not everyone is going to throw their cup out the window. I know that, so I ain't sweatin it. Besides, an empty cup on the side of the road can provide a stable home for insects. It also creates jobs, cuz somebody has to pick it up.

[henry quirk]

Jeez, you nihilists...

Bein' wholly practical: if the Ukraine state lies to get aid, and the lyin' is discovered, the Ukraine state might very well find itself friendless when aid is truly needed. No other state will take kindly to givin' up its resources under false pretenses, especially today.

That's my point wrapped tight.

[promethean75]

To which Z might reply "did it take citizens getting raped in front of their families and their tongues cut off TO GET EVERYONE'S ATTENTION?!! And you wonder why I lied? Здравствуйте!! Need a little help ova heah. *waves arms* Yeah, I'm right beside Russia. Ova heah."

[henry quirk]

War is yet another government lie

Kent Mcmanigal (he Eastern New Mexico News)

https://www.easternnewmexiconews.com/st ... 71352.html

Whenever a government wants to go to war, you can be sure it is lying; to its population and to anyone who listens to its justifications. If anyone supports a war, they have been hoodwinked by the lies. Without lies, no ethical person would ever support war.

The aggressor has to lie and present itself as the victim. Otherwise, its cannon fodder would be less enthusiastic to die for the government's agenda.

Unfortunately, the victim populations' government will lie, too. It's just what governments do. The exact nature of the lies will vary according to the situation, but the lies are going to be told.

Other governments around the world then line up behind whichever set of lies serve their interests the best-- the interests of the politicians, the deep state, and the military industry, not of the people they rule and tax. They'll lie to their populations as to why it's necessary for them to join the war. Many people will believe the lies and feel patriotic in response. It's still all lies.

I fell for the lies which led to the first gulf war-- at least for a short time. I'm ashamed of it now. I'll probably never believe the lies told by any government to justify a war ever again. Fool me once, shame on me, but you won't fool me a second time.

It's different if the threat is coming down the street toward our homes. If organized invaders, sent to die for an enemy government-- I mean, other than the one we suffer under every day-- suddenly came marching down our local streets, the residents who fought back wouldn't be at war; just defending our homes from criminals. It's a critical difference. For one thing, it wouldn't matter whether politicians declared war, or what uniforms the invading hordes wore. We the people would recognize the enemy.

If you learn more about history you'll discover even the "good wars", where you've been told there was a righteous side and an evil side, weren't good wars. Often those on the good side did evil things over the years which caused conditions the evil side used as justification to go to war. Then the good side did things as evil as their enemies once the war began.

Ethical behavior is always an early casualty of war. Some people are fine with this, but if they are *I wonder what other situational ethics they embrace.

*lookin' at you

[iambiguous]

War is yet another government lie

Kent Mcmanigal (he Eastern New Mexico News)

https://www.easternnewmexiconews.com/st ... 71352.html

Whenever a government wants to go to war, you can be sure it is lying; to its population and to anyone who listens to its justifications. If anyone supports a war, they have been hoodwinked by the lies. Without lies, no ethical person would ever support war.

The aggressor has to lie and present itself as the victim. Otherwise, its cannon fodder would be less enthusiastic to die for the government's agenda.

Unfortunately, the victim populations' government will lie, too. It's just what governments do. The exact nature of the lies will vary according to the situation, but the lies are going to be told.

Other governments around the world then line up behind whichever set of lies serve their interests the best-- the interests of the politicians, the deep state, and the military industry, not of the people they rule and tax. They'll lie to their populations as to why it's necessary for them to join the war. Many people will believe the lies and feel patriotic in response. It's still all lies.

I fell for the lies which led to the first gulf war-- at least for a short time. I'm ashamed of it now. I'll probably never believe the lies told by any government to justify a war ever again. Fool me once, shame on me, but you won't fool me a second time.

It's different if the threat is coming down the street toward our homes. If organized invaders, sent to die for an enemy government-- I mean, other than the one we suffer under every day-- suddenly came marching down our local streets, the residents who fought back wouldn't be at war; just defending our homes from criminals. It's a critical difference. For one thing, it wouldn't matter whether politicians declared war, or what uniforms the invading hordes wore. We the people would recognize the enemy.

If you learn more about history you'll discover even the "good wars", where you've been told there was a righteous side and an evil side, weren't good wars. Often those on the good side did evil things over the years which caused conditions the evil side used as justification to go to war. Then the good side did things as evil as their enemies once the war began.

Ethical behavior is always an early casualty of war. Some people are fine with this, but if they are *I wonder what other situational ethics they embrace.

*lookin' at you

This, in my view, is a typical "idealistic" rendition of war. Someone sits down and tries to "think up" the reason for war. They conclude it all comes down to governments lying to us.

Whereas down through the ages any number of wars [including civil wars] have been fought precisely because the government really did believe what they were telling the citizens. Hitler truly believed in his Nazis. Lenin and Mao truly did believe in Communism.

Those who fought against them insisted their reasons were lies...but they'd often have their own idealistic political prejudices to fall back on.

Now, in Ukraine, who here really knows if Valdimir Putin is himself among the idealists. He has a "vision" of what he believes Russia ought to be -- a truly great empire -- and he has set out to make it a reality. Or maybe that is all bullshit and he's after the oil.

On the other hand, there's the materialist rendition of war. It starts with sustaining the means of production...producing an economy that needs an ongoing supply of three things:

1] the cheapest possible labor
2] the most plentiful natural resources
3] the largest number of markets

Enter the military industrial complex. The war economy. An economy predicted, one way or the other, on a nation always being at war "here and now" or preparing for the next one "there and then". Then the lies of the crony capitalists here in America, and the lies of the state capitalists in Russia and China.

The lies here revolve around the bottom line.

Now, for those like Henry, ethical behavior here begins and ends with everyone thinking exactly like he does about, well, everything. And not just abortions, bazookas and wars.

Go ahead, ask him.

[henry quirk]

for those like Henry, ethical behavior here begins and ends with everyone thinking exactly like he does

Go ahead, ask him.

Yes, please do: I'm always lookin' for a chance to talk about natural rights; about life, liberty, and property; about owness; about free will.

[iambiguous]

for those like Henry, ethical behavior here begins and ends with everyone thinking exactly like he does

Go ahead, ask him.

Yes, please do: I'm always lookin' for a chance to talk about natural rights; about life, liberty, and property; about owness; about free will.

Right, he's willing to harangue me -- Bubba, Datsun -- regarding all those things. But notice how he doesn't actually address any of my points about war above.

As for his dogmatic ethical convictions, ask him why he won't go here...

Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns [or war]?

Again, I'm new here. Has anyone ever challenged him regarding an important moral or political issue and found him willing to concede that your point of view was also rational and virtuous?

I'm often willing to do so because I recognize that regarding the conflagrations that "make the news" those on both sides -- on many sides -- are able to make reasonable arguments merely by starting out with different assumptions about the human condition -- I or we? capitalism or socialism? God or No God? idealism or realism? liberal premises or conservative premises? subjectivism or objectivism? And on and on and on.

[promethean75]

I dunno I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange because I don't usually attribute the characteristics of what it is like to own property, to the relationship I have with my body.

I feel like I have some say in my fate, sure, and that if I decided to walk, I could, freely. To that extent there is something about my ability to control my body that is like the power I possess over some property, and I might speak of myself as if I were an object that I owned.

But you don't really OWN own yourself in principle. It is very possible that you be set in some kind of restriction(s) so severe that you have more freedom over your property than yourself. In that case, to speak of ownership of oneself would be quite the conceptual misnomer.

[henry quirk]

I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.

It is very possible that you be set in some kind of restriction(s) so severe that you have more freedom over your property than yourself.

Yes, and this is wrong.

[Belinda]

I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.

It is very possible that you be set in some kind of restriction(s) so severe that you have more freedom over your property than yourself.

Yes, and this is wrong.

It's true that you are responsible for your own decisions but only insofar as you are a free man. A free man is stronger than a slave. A free man can control his own desires so as to benefit his children and brothers and sisters.

[henry quirk]

I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.

It is very possible that you be set in some kind of restriction(s) so severe that you have more freedom over your property than yourself.

Yes, and this is wrong.

It's true that you are responsible for your own decisions but only insofar as you are a free man. A free man is stronger than a slave. A free man can control his own desires so as to benefit his children and brothers and sisters.

[iambiguous]

How to wrap your head around this:

OPINION
MAUREEN DOWD

'WASHINGTON — Please, Kim Kardashian, don’t elope with Pete Davidson.

'We’re already distracted by the wonder of Ketanji Brown Jackson and the blunder of Will Smith, the arrival of dreamy spring days and the return of dreaded mask rules.

'If we get one more shiny object to contemplate, I fear our support for Ukraine might waver. Do we have the attention span to stay focused on the Russian descent into pure evil?

'With brutal methods perfected in other conflicts, the Russians are committing ever more brazen atrocities; they are raping and killing civilians. On Friday, they struck fleeing civilians in a train station in eastern Ukraine, where a missile psychopathically labeled “For our children” killed at least 50 people and wounded nearly 100.

'“Why do they need to hit civilians with missiles? Why this cruelty?” Volodymyr Zelensky asked the Finnish Parliament on Friday, adding, “Sometimes, you think whether they are human at all.”'

Here's another rendition of it: https://youtu.be/BbT1PJsTVkU

It's almost like some want to demand that everyone stop what they are doing and focus exclusively on what to do about Vladimir Putin and his army of thugs.

This works the same when you are in the midst of a terrible personal tragedy. Why does the world go about the business of being the world when it should be zeroing in as you are on "the crisis".

Go figure, right?

[Belinda]

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.



Yes, and this is wrong.

It's true that you are responsible for your own decisions but only insofar as you are a free man. A free man is stronger than a slave. A free man can control his own desires so as to benefit his children and brothers and sisters.

I mean "owning yourself" means being responsible for your own decisions instead of following the crowd, or obeying your owner's decisions.

[henry quirk]

I mean "owning yourself" means being responsible for your own decisions instead of following the crowd, or obeying your owner's decisions.

Well, sure. That's man's natural bent, to self-direct, to self-rely, to be self-responsible. The problem is some men aren't content to rule themselves alone.

[Belinda]

I mean "owning yourself" means being responsible for your own decisions instead of following the crowd, or obeying your owner's decisions.

Well, sure. That's man's natural bent, to self-direct, to self-rely, to be self-responsible. The problem is some men aren't content to rule themselves alone.

There are always a few people who rule others. The thing is to try to make sure the best rulers get to rule.