Jon Letendre

Those conflicting sources are rife. In almost all the mainstream media you get to see, I can be certain. Is it too difficult to entertain other conflicting sources?
Something you don't admit to, that there exists, and has for a long while, an indoctrinating and largely Leftist, western reportage - which is for its adherents, generally accepted as Gospel. Sure, no one likes to acknowledge that their minds have been easily influenced.
You don't approve of (Russian) government sources - despite many international broadcasters being Gvt. owned - fine and good;
it should be simple for you to counter and contrast an (e.g.) Russia Today's report with some from western media.
Why haven't you?
Instead of negatively hiding behind "prove it" - be proactive, offer some contrary accounts (and definite opinions). I welcome any.
I have seen nothing from you showing and linking to ¬msm¬ reports - perhaps too - critically questioning their factual evidence and clear bias.  
The belief that one side in this conflict alone is evidently, factually honest and the other side deceives all the time, aligns with the a priori belief that moral purity exists on one side - with only evil on the other. Both run against reality and reason, premised upon 'revealed' knowledge - faith.
In all, I have simply been the messenger, indicating that there are other facts (or 'non-facts') and other viewpoints available "out there", ones suppressed in the West, not heard of. These ought to be welcomed by rigorous thinkers.
Discussions and speeches I put up have not attracted any analysis or debate here. E.g. What merit are Mearsheimer's opinions of NATO and the Russian objections? Not a reply.   
In closing, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything that comes from media sources. Because - I was not there on the spot, to personally witness events. As nobody here is, therefore we have to painstakingly draw deductions from ¬all¬ we hear.
But I take the view that Objectivists are independent thinkers who aren't timid about uncovering reality without fear or favor.
 
 

No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this? 

No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this? 

The social and legal persecution of Russian-speakers and ethnic Russians in Ukraine is a well-documented fact.
The civil war over Donbas can be researched, while not much was publicized back then (or now).
I don't see "a genocide" of the locals as Putin stated, and as little do I accept the "genocidal" motive of Russia's assault on Ukrainians. Not the slightest evidence for this, mere scare-mongering. The opposite, trying to avoid civilian casualties, is closer to true.
However, civilians were certainly killed in the Donbas by Kyiv's indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas**, totaling combatant and non-combatant deaths above 22,000.
If AI, the UN, and any organizations voiced concerns about that long civil war, I have not seen where they actively did a single thing to end it. That should raise suspicion by itself. Maybe, I speculate, they were told to butt out.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0mpSYhoz5AhXEolwKHUdtDuYQFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCasualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&usg=AOvVaw2vgfH37WVebSyjea27Kdhz
**exactly as Kyiv is once again doing recently.
 

🤣🤣🤣
1. Look Tony, this is not a site where people post their works of fiction. Not in this section, anyway.
I don’t think you got a license from this site’s owners which grants you the extraordinary privilege to be dispensed from the burden of grounding your assertions in FACT !
When asked for proof, you say that it is not available, that it is hidden from truth-tellers and truth-seekers because it is suppressed by powerful Forces. And thus we have a full circle – so typical of conspiracy theories. But, curiously, it is available to you through such notorious truth-seekers and truth-tellers as the Putinist Russia state-owned agencies like Russia Today, RIA Novosti, TASS and other Dimitri Simes’es.
2. I asked you to specify clearly if you agree about the following point of principle – about about legitimate sources for facts:
«During a war it is useless to get the facts from the government-related sources of the warring parties: one knows they do engage in propaganda and, thus, one cannot a priori know which clams are true. I explained this before, but you did not comment. Therefore, “facts” (and, consequently also opinions) coming from these sources should have no place in our debate»
You did nothing.

Another quibbler. This link was in a reply to the "murdering" of Easterners.
For many, it is not the veracity of facts that matters, it's the dislike of facts. 

Interesting parallel. When once, a certain world leader was hero-worshipped by the western media and politicians, and consequently by the western people - for as long as he was 'useful' and after. Who also committed his army and citizens and great losses of life to a (in a sense) "proxy war" on the West's behalf. Again, irrelevant *where* it is published. Anyhow, the observations of a western journalist, btw.
 
https://www.rt.com/russia/558778-us-campaign-stalin-regime/

The Western propaganda machine that succeeded from the start and has been favoring one direction 99:1, has convinced nearly all people. Objectivists too, I am sorry to see.  I don't expect them to run with the "me too" herd. Unheard, anything else, since RT was banned and very little from other media conflicts the mainstream narrative. The "other side" is publicized everywhere and I don't need to repeat it.
1.  RT produces mainly simple stories putting forward facts and statements, not always favorable to Russia, that you can verify elswhere.
2. The discussion above is of opinions by three Americans, experts in their fields, one ex-Pentagon, hardly "Putinists" - did you notice? I think the arguments have objective merit. They would not get any airing on MSM. Try considering the words and ideas independently without prejudice. Break down their arguments and facts, if you can. Or reject anything from RT out of hand, with prejudiced evasion.
This tiny amount published against a deluge of western indoctrination, and which upsets your fixed mindset, exposes what I've known:  that finding the truth behind and rational solutions to the war is unimportant to many -  not disturbing anyone's pre-existing bias and "moral feelings" is.  
You also similarly "judge the book by the cover", simple laziness.
 
 

The authoritarianism by every western leader in response to the conflict, acting in dictatorial unison, without their citizens' informed consent or mandate while at their final cost, has been breathtaking. Yes.
But explains the absolute necessity of the "propaganda machine" to keep an unprotesting public on board.

along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes

Beware of axe handles. Anyone here approve of this behavior? Alas, it may well be that I'm the only one here with an axe, and I certainly do not approve of the attack on Jan. 6! Nor any of you guys making slight such behavior!
Keep on with the the lol's, models of stupidity in more ways than one.
Speaking of stupidity, you defenders here of the woe-is-me, poor-'lil-white-guy set, always rationalizing rioters you sympathize with by switching the topic to violence that was perpetrated in association with BLM public assemblies should notice that if a patrolman stops me for speeding, it is no defense to cry "but everyone was speeding." Break the law, get caught, pay penalty. 

One officer died of a stroke that was a result of a pre-existing condition, he was the officer who lain in state at the Rotunda , what bullshit that was.
And several others committed suicide , there may have been a cardiac event or two.
It is more than a stretch to say these deaths are/were the result of violence on the part of attackers, it's propaganda/gaslighting  bullshit .

No law enforcement officers were killed , one woman protester was shot to death by law enforcement , and one woman was trampled and died , most likely, as the result of not being given proper medical treatment at the scene.
Where do you get the idea that law enforcement officers were killed , it is patently untrue , how do you come by this impression ?

oh no now the Texas GOP is duped
https://www.theepochtimes.com/texas-gop-passes-resolution-declaring-biden-not-legitimately-elected_4543841.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=whatfinger

Hooligans
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/lied-proof-highly-sensitive-doj-jan-6-documents-leaked-gateway-pundit-fbi-confidential-human-source-infiltrated-proud-boys-ran-fbi-operation-j-6-reported/

Don't have sex with strangers.  Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others.  Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness.  Don't rely on abortion as contraception.   These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.

When in Rome ..

Even between sexual partners in a committed relationship most sex does not result in pregnancy, so this is not plausible.  However a good heuristic for whether or not one should have sex with someone is if a pregnancy would be completely unacceptable then don't have the sex.  
 
I confess, I think sluts are hilarious.  Sluts and drunks (similar mentality) ought to be ridiculed at every opportunity.  Not just because ridicule can be entertaining but it can be persuasive to get people to change their behavior.

That was not what I said, merely that it would be reasonable and understandable if a state were to bar gay adoption for the protection of children.  I have since gained some finer grained knowledge of possibly the real problem: children with genetically unrelated male stepparents in the household have a many times greater risk of being abused or killed (not just the murdered but also those getting into danger due to less parental attention).  The phenomenon has been named the "Cinderella effect".
People have sex for all kinds of reasons, including poor reasons.  It is simply not the case that sex is always indicative of someone pursuing pleasure and love.
Did I make a list of preventatives?  No, and why should I when the topic is abortion and contraception had already failed or was absent?  Contraception is used by people of both sexes with some sense of responsibility and an extended time horizon in their thoughts, not the kind of anti-conceptual and range-of-the-moment mentality I was criticizing.
Perhaps you simply are not aware of potential scale of the problem.  Most abortions are due to this mentality in action.
 

Abortion would be a less controversial issue if few cared about it.  If only the 7.7% abortions with valid reasons took place there would a lot less people paying attention to the issue.
Of further interest on this sidebar is Gay Parenting: Promise and Pitfalls | Dave Rubin & Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
 

But rhetoric is essentially about persuading.
 

Tony next you’ll say the American regime is acting in an authoritarian manner just because its officials arrest political opponents on bogus charges or broadcasts show trials 
https://www.theepochtimes.com/michigan-republican-gubernatorial-candidate-arrested-in-connection-to-jan-6-capitol-breach_4522911.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=whatfinger
Tune in tonight to see and help the regime identify and punish its enemies!
81 million people can’t be wrong , Joe’s legit everybody knows it , and it’s criminal to think otherwise !

Steven Pinker suggested this in his recent book, Rationality, Chapter 10: What's Wrong With People?
"The obvious reason people avoid getting onto a train of reasoning is that they don't like where it takes them." Page 289

Much in that. How else does one break out of the spin of media deception, the One public Narrative, but with one's induction-deduction?
A blizzard of distracting, media fed 'factoids' bring about good ol' O'ist nitpicking over minutiae.
Also some grasp of human nature is invaluable...  

Q would be proud of your bravery. 

Even on the Russian side, there was open admission that Ukraine put up more resolute and capable resistance than expected. But I've not heard they thought it would fall like a house of cards! If the West thought so, I wonder if they weren't dissembling, seeing as Britain and the US had been supplying and training Ukranians since 2015 (the UK, anyway) and should have known better how effective the Army was.
This reduces to how much Russia wanted or still wants to take Kyiv. And what costs would be acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why they'd try: superficially, of course to change the government, but that does not make sense. At great losses, civilian casualties and substantial damage to the city, the troops finally get to the Government buildings to find - everybody's left. Relocated secretly much earlier to a more secure part of the country. So what's the point? And as for the country's occupation...
I think you were aware of the crazy self-contradiction which we all were hearing simultaneously in the media, after Russia's retreat-redeployment or 'defeat' at Kyiv. (I still believe the attack was part "probe" to test out resistance and part diversionary-tactic). 
1. Russia is done for, taking too many losses, under-equipped, low morale - etc.etc.
Ukraine has victory in its sights!
2. Russia will now go after Poland, etc. etc. next, in its "expansionism".
Done for, or an army of Supermen? You can't have it both ways: a weak Army that couldn't defeat one city, is badly beaten--and now a powerhouse ready and able to conquer Europe?!
Most visibly now, neither was and is true. It had big losses, but is still strongly functioning.
Into Europe, a fantasy bridge too far, that couldn't possibly been even considered by Putin and his generals I think. It will become clearer as things unfold.
The point of the split "narrative" was almost certainly : 1. to build up Ukrainian morale with its apparent successes--and keep on going with its proxy war  2. to scare Europe into submission and sending support -- and gain new NATO members.
A military analyst wrote the other day, re: the fighting in the East and South that Russia's traditional battle style has been "a slow grinding down" of opposition, nothing flashy.