Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Posts

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by AlexL

  1. Please note: - it is confusing for me when you split into several pieces your answer to my comment. If you have to, please add “to be continued…”; - for clarity for you and for me, please quote my claims to which you are answering (as I do); - when you quote something, please specify clearly what that quote is supposed to prove; - same for URLs. Regarding URLs: instead of a monster like https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWjI3RmZ74AhUITMAKHQ7LC40QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmacmillan.yale.edu%2Fnews%2Ffrustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo&usg=AOvVaw0x-1bNWxlFhHOp_ntbfMsu you could simply give https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo Just click on the monster, se what URL does the browser display and paste that URL. > The 5 minute wonder. "Putin did NOT". Is Putin's (self) justification questionable? https://www.google.com/url? […] What is that URL supposed to prove? Does it prove that Putin, in his speech broadcast the morning of the February 24 invasion, did indeed specify Minsk failure as a cause for invasion? No, it does not. It proves only that the author, David R. Cameron, Professor Emeritus etc. BELIEVES that the Minsk 2 failure frustrated Putin very much. He does not even say that Putin mentioned Minsk accords in the above mentioned speech. Therefore: what useful purpose does that URL serve ? > For good measure, and similar, RT: "Russia attacked the neighboring state […]” What does that quote supposed to prove? That Putin mentioned Minsk accords in that speech ? > I would like you to supply your source denying that Minsk non-implementation as justification. My - charitable ! – interpretation of this strange construct is that you are asking me on what basis am I clamming that Putin did NOT, in his explanatory 24 February speech, mention the Minsk accords. OK. As you could have guessed by yourself, the only way to irrefutably prove, or disprove, this claim is to go to the source, which is Putin’s speech itself. Of course, an official transcript will suffice (vs. video). There is nothing more official as the President Putin’s official site. The transcript (and the authorized English translation) is here: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 You could have found it by yourself in less than 5 minutes, as I did (through Wikipedia). But you apparently don’t have the reflex to fact-check your claims, even for the Objectivism Forum… Now: if you search the word “Minsk” in that transcript… it isn’t there! Neither is it to be found in the Russian transcript. Therefore, your claim that Putin DID mention the Minsk accords among his justifications for the invasion is thus disproved. Please note that Putin first spoke about invasion in THAT speech, never before. > And I did not state that I "consider that the failure to abide...is an acceptable casus belli" etc. Neither did I say that you did. Read again: I have ASKED you “do you consider that the failure to abide by an agreement is an acceptable casus belli?” I’ve also added “If not, why mention it?” Therefore: why have you mentioned it? > I said in effect that [that] was PUTIN's reason. Ahm… While one can easily know what Putin SAYS his reason is, it is extremely difficult to know what his reason IS… > I'll go further… if he or any government perceived a threat to Russian Ukrainian - or one's countrymen's lives (in another country) - none would sit back and let them get killed: They'd take preemptive military action to rescue them. Sound just to you? No, it doesn’t. But I am willing to consider the justifications you can provide. I wrote that of the three of your claims about facts, I found two to be false and one to be at least arbitrary (made without proof) and even very suspect. You answered: “I count two.” Now, considering what II said above on the Putin’s Feb. 24 speech, could you please update your count ? > Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" I presented no narrative. I was essentially fact-checking your facts. And I intend to continue along these lines and abstain, for the time being, from presenting my own narratives. My working hypothesis is that many, if not most of your „facts” are not true. I did not fact-check all the factual claim you’ve made until yesterday and you cannot change them, but it is up to you to post from now on only verified facts 😉 It's not a shame not to know if a statement of fact is true or not, but it's a shame to spread unverified statements, especially on this forum.
  2. > Obvious what I'm saying [by insisting that Putin himself (co-)signed the Minsk deal]. [I am saying] that Putin clearly had a vested interest in the success of the Minsk agreement. Russia’s foreign policy is, and was, controlled by Putin; of course he had an interest, otherwise Russia would not have sponsored it! This is, however, self-evident and did NOT deserve being insisted upon. > by using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade, he [Putin] likely was sincere. Putin did NOT use Minsk’s failure as one of the justification to invade Ukraine. You made - again! - a claim without checking first, although it would have been easy : I needed less than 5 minutes. (Besides, do you consider that the failure to abide by an agreement is an acceptable casus belli??? If not, why mention it? We could address later the subject of what could truly justify a military action /invasion.) > It doesn't make any objective difference what contacts I have or haven't over there. If it's so important, I have known someone […] A friend […] Does that help? You are commenting here on my question about why the subject Russia-Ukraine interests you. Yes, thanks, I was curious and, besides, it does objectively help: it tells me something about your context. > Anyone can find their own, not trust blindly, think for themselves. This is about my question on your main trusted sources of information on this subject. I appreciated your principle about not blindly trusting, but checking instead. And you give an example – about news of an “assault allegedly[???] planned by Kyiv to have been launched in March this year” which „never make it into the mainstream media.” Your link points to an article titled “Revealed, This Is The Reason For Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine February 24: Ahead Of Kyiv's Plan To Attack Donbass In March 2022”. The publication you chose is more than obscure, but it doesn’t matter here; however, you could have chosen the primary source, Sputnik News. What matters is that it cites a Russian Federation’s Defense Ministry spokesman claiming that: "During the special military operation, the secret documents of the command of the Ukrainian National Guard became the property of the Russian military. These documents confirm the secret preparations by the Kyiv regime for the offensive operation in Donbas scheduled for March 2022" I don’t dispute that the spokesman has indeed said this. But, as you could imagine even without checking ;-), the Ukrainians immediately denied this, which means that the matter is at least disputed. In such a situation one does the obvious: one tries to look at the Ukrainian “secret documents”. They are secret for Ukraine, but the Russian would have gladly published them, if real, to irrefutably prove such a crucial point (for them). Have you found them? If not, doesn’t this fact seem suspect to you? Therefore: after checking (quite at random) three of your claims about facts, I found two to be false and one to be at least arbitrary (made without proof) and even very suspect. It indicates, maybe, a pattern: preaching the principle “not trust blindly, think for themselves”, but not really practicing it. And remember the saying: you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Which means that, in the future, before citing facts, especially on this Objectivism Forum, you should carefully check them.
  3. You seem to stress this as if it had a special significance. What is it, what are you trying to say ? (BTW, Putin did NOT co-sign either of the two Minsk agreements; it took me less than 5 minutes to check. Is this simply a singular oversight ? Or are you generally not very meticulous with facts ? We will see...) In addition to my question above, I would appreciate if you could answer the following two more general, but somewhat personal questions: 1. I saw that you posted quite a number of comments on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with many details. Therefore: why does this subject interests you ? Have you ever had contact with that region ? Relatives ? 2. What are your main trusted sources of information on this subject ? About this and other points - maybe later, depending on how the conversation functions, or doesn't... 😀
  4. Let’s see if my claim about your practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems is true. Evasion: > I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence. Here is what you "produced": > The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony [...] that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people... In fact: a). you produced no links, only claims, and b). most importantly, these claims are about "atrocities", while the claim you had to justify was that Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”. You evaded the subject instead of proving your claim. Misrepresentation: You claimed that “the Ukraine government is run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)”. I noted that this makes sense only IF “the Azov Battalion” is some kind of a political party which dominates the government. To this you comment that I (!!!) do believe that they're a political party ! This is a clear misrepresentation. Ad hominems: > you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is […] > But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep > Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people. The subject under debate was not my person, but your claim that Ukraine is run by Nazis. Given the established fact that you - are unable to justify your claims (which coincide with Putin’s propaganda) - and that you are practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems, I will ask the moderator(s) to consider the possibility of banning you from this forum. Indeed, there are thousands of sites hosting Putin’s propaganda, so that it is not necessary that the Objectivist Online Forum becomes one of them.
  5. You claimed that the Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”. I have asked you to prove this. Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems. Afterwards I asked you if you do intend to prove your allegation, e.g. by naming the top government officials who are Nazis or by naming the specifically Nazi policies of this government. You did not react. This is my third and last attempt: what is your evidence that the Ukraine government is run by Nazis?
  6. You alleged that the Ukraine government “is run by a neo-Nazi gang”. I’ve asked you to prove it. I even suggested you a specific method: by naming the top government officials who are Nazis. Or you could list the specifically neo-Nazi policies of this government. You did neither of these. Neither have you done it in any other proper, i.e. rational, way. Evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems are NOT arguments. Therefore: do you intend to prove that allegation? And make only claims you can prove? Otherwise it will mean that you intend to continue to contaminate this forum with putinist propaganda.
  7. You wrote: > [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) > [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" 1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim. 2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government. Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ? And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me. Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.
  8. Also: Alex Epstein's interview with M. Schellenberger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGmKq38FjWk
  9. It is an essay/article, not a book. In general, I highly recommend The Tracinski Letter.
  10. Your claim was that most of Trump’s chaotic and erratic behavior etc. is only “bluff to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies”, but is not fundamental to his personality. You mention some instances when, in your opinion, he is doing this bluffing and provocation, namely directed toward media. This is not sufficient to prove that. What about the chaotic and erratic behavior outside and beyond his interaction with the media, namely in domestic and foreign policies, in WH personnel decisions etc.? Are these also for bluffing/taunting the hostile media? So: no, I cannot buy your arguments to explain away his behavior.
  11. I don't buy into the oneself part because we are both conceptual beings. Therefore, I still expect you to provide some clues/indications YOU did observe and which made you to allege :
  12. " I think ..." Do you have some hard facts to substantiate your assumption? Otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or rationalization.
  13. If you see the value of that strategy, then I am satisfied. Besides, there can be no evidence about what people will do in the future.
  14. Because in the past some Republicans had some glimpses in that direction. It is true, however, that public demand for that has dropped… And then... there is Trump's chaotic and clownesque personality...
  15. Yes, there is a non-zero probability that the Dem party will quantum-tunnel to individual rights, economic freedom, limited government etc.😁
  16. But why do you think this could happen? Why are they any more likely than Democrats? Because I think that, if Trump loses the election, GOP will examine the hypothesis that this had something to do with Trump, the previous GOP choice from among several candidates
  17. if that's all you meant, Republicans have historically failed on this. All evidence points to "not gonna happen". You would need a new political party. I don't have reason to think that any Republicans will reform their ideas if Trump loses. A new political party to compete with Reps and Dems - it not gonna happen. And: if Trump loses, maybe GOP will select in the future much more carefully its presidential candidates. And finally: there is zero chance that Dems will switch to individual rights, economic freedom etc. Given all this, getting rid of Trump it is a priority (unless the Dem candidate will be of the extreme left).
  18. By "Under current circumstances, that is as an alternative to Trump, a not-so-extreme a counter-candidate IS a hope" I did not intend to imply that Trump is "extreme" and a Dem candidate would be less. My claim is that Trump is worse than a Dem candidate, IF the latter is not of the extreme left. Sorry if the wording appeared ambiguous. And the reason I gave was that "the non-election of Trump [being, under circumstances] a hope for a better Republican party for the (medium-term) future", because GOP is the only major party which could be in the future for some individual rights etc., more than the Dems
  19. Under current circumstances, that is as an alternative to Trump, a not-so-extreme a counter-candidate IS a hope. It is a hope for the non-election of Trump and, therefore, a hope for a better Republican party for the (medium-term) future.
  20. So Who Is John Galt, Anyway?: A Reader's Guide to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Author's presentation: http://tracinskiletter.com/2019/09/26/so-who-is-john-galt-anyway/ Editions: Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1694291782 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07YCY22W8
  21. The Kindle version is available again : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P5TWX4J/
  22. Oh, I see!!! Your „gravity threads theory“ wasn’t for real, you intended it as an exercise in philosophical detection! Possibly in the context of the discussion in the thread “Fundamentally, is there only ‘spacetime’?", which I did not follow...
  23. 1. I’ll begin with the most serious mistake and continue with the less serious ones. The premise of your “theory” is that the possible trajectories an object can take in free fall are in fact real. You call them “gravity threads”. In your view, an object follows a path by “attaching” itself to the “thread” corresponding to the object’s velocity. Until and unless the reality of the gravity threads is established, any speculations about details, e.g. how it would work in different circumstances, are absolutely useless. In the absence of a solid justification of your premise, your “theory” is neither true nor false, it is simply arbitrary. This essential objection was already made by MisterSwing - but you failed to comment on it, which is unfortunate... Besides, yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - at most ! 2. You did not justify the necessity of revising the classical Newtonian theory of as applied to free fall: non-concordance with observations, possible gaps in the theory and so on. In the classical theory the various trajectories are potentialities, only one will be taken in reality, depending on the initial velocity (value and direction) and the strength of the gravitational field. 3. You say nothing about how it would be possible to prove the reality of the “gravity threads”. 4. If the trajectories/“gravity threads” are real, it should be possible to observe them. For this they should interact with our senses or instruments, and thus they probably have to possess some energy. Because you postulate an infinity of such “gravity threads”, you have an obvious problem: one will need an infinite energy to create them (at least a continuum infinity of the 6-th order!!) 5. I will also mention one of the least important mistakes. You write that “in space above the Earth and within the Earth's influence, Threads all follow parabolic arcs”. This is false: even in the absence of any other force beside the Earth gravity (such as air resistance), the parabolic arcs (y=Ax+Bx2) are only approximations - namely second order approximations. Even in the ideal case, the true trajectories are (almost) never parabolas. Details – on demand. PS: wrong is also your question addressed to the audience: “What’s wrong with the theory?”. This question is wrong from the point of view of the onus of proof rule.
  24. My (preliminary) questions are perfectly legitimate, with no shade of ad hominem. Now I know that the “theory” is YOURS and I understand that what you wrote under the title “Gravity Threads - A Theory” is ALL that is about this “theory”.
  25. Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”? This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then: - you obviously agree with it - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions. If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...