Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by AlexL

  1. Obviously I need to work in my delivery, if what I said is to be taken as approving. No, you don't : Seshadri Kumar was approvingly quoted by whYNOT.
  2. I do bother. I have a dream😁: whYNOT is ejected from this Objectivism site (for not abiding by the rules of a rational discussion) or at least is banned from posting to the threads about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, where he broadcasts war propaganda.
  3. I also suspect that this Seshadri Kumar never dreamed to be approvingly quoted on a Objectivism site...
  4. Nothing but dissembling sophistry--for effect. You are quite the authoritarian, no? There is no trace of sophistry in my comment [but you are free to reveal it], neither dissembling, nor otherwise, but it is obvious that my tactics with you is getting you looney. It wouldn't if you would make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here. For me, "out there" are only facts I can perceive. For what others believe - and what you push here indiscriminately - I need evidence. It is not my choice with you, only with whoever is, in my judgment, sincerely interested in forming an opinion. I will read all you say, so that you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.
  5. "Possible" has many meanings. As you connect it with identity and causality, it follows that you use it in the metaphysical sense. Now : in connection to what metaphysical claim are you making the above observation ?
  6. Yes, it works ! Thanks vey much to David and to you!
  7. Josep Borrell is a high EU official (kind of an EU Foreign Minister). EU is indeed an ally of Ukraine, I would say, but you say it wasn't him (but some Cato Institute author.) I therefore understand that you retract your claim that [US/NATO/EU will fight Russian aggression] «"Until the last Ukrainian" was uttered by an ALLY of Ukraine»
  8. Who was this ally(?) ? What was the context ? Please provide the reference.
  9. You were "not as clueless" as I was. You kept yourself "in the light" - Was all you have proferred about the Maidan and Donbas events. You made a claim and I asked for evidence, as I usually do. Why should I have proffered more ? Did I presented facts about Maidan and Donbas ? No, I did not. And this is my choice, as I announced many months ago : as you are presenting a lot of "facts" on which you base your conclusions/opinions, I ask(d) you to present evidence. Which you never really did. In the last week or so I challenged you to present proof for half a dozen of your factual claims, but you failed to do this, same as you did before. I even warned you that I will challenge you, so you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here. But instead you complain that I don't throw here facts and opinions. Yes, I do make my life easy and your life tough. ---- The main rule of a rational discussion is: I prove my facts if asked to, you prove yours. You don't abide by it and I wonder why are you still tolerated on this Objectivism forum...
  10. Is that concept so hard to entertain? It is impossible to entertain this without evidence. But I won't hold my breath to ever get it from you.
  11. Here are two sources - which are at least as Swiss as Baud is😁, and which discuss Baud's opinions: https://www.heidi.news/articles/les-methodes-de-l-espion-suisse-jacques-baud-pour-disculper-la-russie-en-ukraine https://www.blick.ch/politik/editorial-ueber-meinungsfreiheit-in-kriegszeiten-ein-schweizer-geheimdienstler-auf-putins-mission-id17430444.html If you don't understand the respective languages, just install in your browser the Google Translate extension and you will get entire webpages translated with just two clicks (no repeated copy/pastes anymore). This will also open to you all sites in Russian, both governmental and private. A vast new world... PS. Just to clarify: you cited Baud, I cited anti-Baud. They cancel one another. Now what ? Let Baud alone, he is not an uncontested authority, he is not the fifth Evangelist. Therefore just prove his claims.
  12. Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization? Is the fact that "some people and countries do somehow object to <something>" automatically means that that >something> is illegitimated or illegal ? For any action of anyone there is someone that will find it objectionable. IOW, you should first research the matter (what you never do) and establish: 1. what are the facts about "neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals", and 2. what about that is illegal? About "illegal": maybe you are not aware, but the number and placement of nuclear weapons and of the corresponding vectors is regulated by a series of treaties between USSR/RF and USA, which are still in force and which also foresee reciprocal inspections to insure compliance. So: do your research and try to establish an illegality: that the facts you found according to #1 violate the treaties. Hint: lookup "New START" in Wiki. It has been extended just last year for 5 more years. So: do your research about #1 and #2 above. It would be useless for you to comment before having done this. PS: in particular, regarding "10 minutes flight from their capitals", try to establish that Russia does NOT already have the same capabilities with regards to the Western European capitals, that there is a dissymmetry. A rapid search showed that Washington/DC is at 30 minutes flight time for Russia's nuclear bombs, and 10-15 if launched from submarines. And this is for Russia to USA, not for Russia to Western Europe !
  13. Is this - "Russian-Ukrainians have been and are yet today being indiscriminately shelled and killed by their own government" - a fact ? What independent agency established that Russian-Ukrainians have been indeed indiscriminately shelled and killed ? Hint: there were at least two organization which sent monitoring missions to Ukraine: OSCE (started its activity in March 21, 2014 already) and UN. Important: - OSCE had almost 1'000 observers from 45 participating states. They issue weekly reports. Now, anyone of the participating states can stop the entire mission if, for example, it considers the reports as being biased. From March 2014 to March 2022 Russia approved every time the extension of the mission, which means it wasn't dissatisfied. The mission was discontinues on 31 March 2022 because Russia vetoed it. - the UN mission was mandated by the UNSC in 2014 and continued its activity until its extension was vetoed, in March 2022, by Russia Therefore: did these bodies establish, in their 8 years long activity, that Russian-Ukrainians have been indeed indiscriminately shelled and killed? That, in other words, there was indeed a genocide there, with civilians being targeted specifically (vs. simply a war, where people - military and civilians - are killed on both sides)? After you establish this as a fact, I will consider your question "what you think Putin should have done?" Please stay focused on this question and try not to go on a tangent ...
  14. I have to ask... what do you mean by Russia's security situation? Who was or is planning/threatening to attack or invade Russia? Oh, don't you know already ? In the last 15 years USA/NATO were encircling Russia and were about to jump on her neck, to strangle her and get their hands on her natural resources. But Putin, after kindly warning them, was forced to start a preventive operation, a gentle one to begin with🤣
  15. Limited numbers for a limited operation. As situations change, one needs to adjust bla bla... Where is the quote from where you stated that Russia will step-up its military effort and will start fighting for real only after many, many months after the beginning???
  16. The facts are unpalatable to you. I've given dozens of experts who provide facts. ... Then put here the proof(s) these experts provided for their facts.
  17. Again, you deduce facts from words. Stop this farce. Come up with a direct proof, or go away.
  18. The necessity, given the West's ferocity [...] Just show where you stated that Russia will step-up its military effort and will start fighting for real only after many, many months after the beginning. With a quote. And spare me the subterfuge that is was "implicit", that it was "obvious", that Putin is not such an idiot as to ignore the 3-to-1 rule, etc., etc. Just a quote. Don't even bother without it.
  19. It pertains to an inference about [...] "It pertains to an inference..." Just quote my claim and then disprove/refute it.
  20. I am not going to make MYSELF deductions in order to prove YOUR claim. Therefore, I am still waiting the proof of your claim: And "proof" doesn't mean your usual bla-bla which tries to deduce facts from words, but presenting either an admission of this from a high-ranking Ukrainian official, or a (captured?) Ukrainian military plan of such an operation, or something of that kind, nothing less. (The Russian propaganda claimed in March 2022 that a military plan for attacking the occupied Donbass was found - in some captured Ukrainian headquarters. Unfortunately they never presented it, as a proof that Russia prevented in fact an Ukrainian attack...) So: the proof !
  21. It was so predictable that you mentioned this only a few days ago, 9 months after the beginning ! And, coincidentally, only a few weeks after Russia's governmental media started to broadcast the same justification: "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, we were just kidding, but now we will show them etc. etc. !". Then prove that there can be no other explanation.
  22. I explained my initial position mainly in the Ukraine thread at OL and it hasn't changed. The culpability for the conflict was on all sides. So end this war before it escalates, send [...] What does this have to do with what I wrote - that the theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." is new for you and appeared after it started to be developed on the Russia's governmental media ???
  • Create New...