Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Posts

    752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    AlexL reacted to Grames in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Posting to subscribe to the thread.   I really don't care about this conflict because I am neither jewish nor muslim.  I would just like to remind everyone of the big picture: modern Isreal exists because of the ideology of Zionism and jewish supremacism embedded within it.  If Zionism is invalid then anything which is a consequence of Zionism is invalid.

  2. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Is this for me? If it is, then first cool down. Then explain, calmly, your objection to my comments.
  3. Haha
    AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    There'd not have been a war without close collusion of Western Gvts./Nato with their flunky western media. The immense sacrifices demanded requires sanction from unthinking, misinformed majorities, driven by emotions whipped up by the media.
    Ukraine in some regional wrangle with Russia? Were there solutions on hand? Yes. Simply slap temporary sanctions on both; tell them both to behave, stand down and begin negotiations--instantly - before conflict escalates.
    Why is it our business? - stay out. 
    If just in retrospect, one can now see that was too simple or rational;  an unsuitable resolution contrary to the ultimate goals of the 'powers that be. Therefore, they intended war.
     
  4. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from tadmjones in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Is this for me? If it is, then first cool down. Then explain, calmly, your objection to my comments.
  5. Haha
    AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    e
    A prequel to Ukraine, with very similar elements in place; The Soviets break up, a Color revolution, a war by West-leaning Georgians against the conservative loyalists in South Ossetia, a (short) military intervention by Russia - however = Georgia remains a sovereign nation to the present. Russia did not try to conquer/annex/ "Empire build" Georgia by justifying and capitalizing upon the tensions. Further, it did not do so despite Georgian wishes to join NATO and their close operational affinity.
    A state situated totally within Russia - a NATO member!? and all the militarization and probable nuclear bases that entails? Really smart - and cynical. Unpopular with Moscow. This would be a security danger (for Georgia as well), into the far future. Nor would any other country consider tolerating a clearly inimical entity entering its heartland.
    I could theorize that the game-plan by NATO et al utilized the Georgian episode knowing it could also entice Russia into Ukraine to defend loyalists - and the RF - against a massive, Nato-ized army, and to block NATO's intentions in the Russian "near abroad".
    Besides, the fault lay largely with Georgia for the conflict, in this independent study. Only the RF's "legality' is faulted.
    https://www.dw.com/en/independent-report-blames-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war/a-4746802
     
  6. Haha
    AlexL reacted to necrovore in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.
    Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.
    And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.
    If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.
    If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.
    (It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)
    Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.
  7. Haha
    AlexL reacted to necrovore in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation.
    The whole debate is about which facts to use, because if someone can cause facts to be discarded, or lies to be treated as facts, they can rig the argument to produce any result they want, even without changing the principles.
    The "mainstream Western media" has learned that they can get perquisites by going along with the party line; the government, which makes news whenever it changes its policies, can reward obedient reporters by giving them scoops. This has been true for a long time; Rush Limbaugh's radio show cited example after example after example (of reporters uncritically repeating what they were told by leftist politicians). I see no evidence that this situation has changed, and much evidence that it has gotten worse. I also see no evidence that the situation is any different with the Ukraine issue than any other (such as gun control). That the media lies is not a "conspiracy theory." It is very real, and has been going on for decades.
    I do not agree with @whYNOT about everything, but I very much disagree with the notion of censoring or canceling everything and everybody that "goes against the mainstream." Ayn Rand also went against the mainstream, and if she were to have written her novels in today's environment, no one would know about her.
  8. Thanks
    AlexL got a reaction from William Scott Scherk in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).
    As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".
    You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.
    He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.
    The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...
    So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...
    His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁
  9. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).
    As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".
    You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.
    He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.
    The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...
    So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...
    His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁
  10. Haha
    AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
    It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
    Turns out he is quite rational.
    And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
    Then move onto the next country?
    All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
    All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
    Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
    If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
    Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
    The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
    Therefore the West can never accept that
    1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
    2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
    Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
    The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
    Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.
  11. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact:
    Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states:
    "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."
    IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries. 
    Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU.
    Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force.
    Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5  does commit members to an obligation to fight !
  12. Like
    AlexL reacted to Craig24 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Israeli explains why the pro-palestinian view is wrong:
     
  13. Confused
    AlexL reacted to Grames in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
  14. Haha
    AlexL reacted to Grames in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    It's over.  Russia wins.
    The New Current Thing is Israel's war of extermination against the Gaza concentration camp.  All further media attention and war funding will go there.  Without being propped up by the U.S. their Ukrainian puppet regime will collapse and Russia and its puppets will survive.  Biden will attempt to fund the two wars at once but it is too much to ask.
  15. Thanks
    AlexL reacted to Boydstun in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Hamas Network of Tunnels Under Gaza
  16. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from dream_weaver in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook
     
     
  17. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook
     
     
  18. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Boydstun in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook
     
     
  19. Like
    AlexL reacted to EC in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Or they could just take out Iran in one shot and then warn the rest of the terrorist "nations" that they are next if they even sneeze wrong, but that would be too easy and quick, and moral.
  20. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Boydstun in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Breaking News -- Israel Under Attack 
     
     
  21. Thanks
    AlexL got a reaction from stansfield123 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Breaking News -- Israel Under Attack 
     
     
  22. Like
    AlexL reacted to Craig24 in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    As a follow up to my last post here's a NY Times article on Russian censorship since the beginning of the conflict.
    From the article:
     
  23. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    1. There is nothing there about "majority willingness" or "referenda" in the words of the Vice-Speaker of Russia's "Parliament". On the contrary, he uses the verb "вернуть", which means return · restore · bring back · recover · get back · take back something which rightly belongs to Russia.
    Neither the Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council and former Russia President, Dmitry Medvedev, mentions "majority willingness" or "referenda", he simply states that "[in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia." Note the unconditional "will be attached".
    The previous experience suggest that this will happen by Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda". And not the other way around.
    2. "referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview" About this - only after finishing with # 1. One subject at a time.
  24. Haha
    AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    They meant it - "To the last Ukrainian!" What made for rousing headline copy at the time is closer. The refugees, now 'draft dodgers', are to be forced by Kyiv to go home and fight(some EU countries have refused, to their credit).
    In war, when you've run out of your available resources, you've lost the war and must sue for an armistice. All that one heard until lately was about the endless supply of weaponry - lethal aid - to Ukraine. As though the weapons and armor, each type a proposed "game changer", would do the job alone. How much was heard about the steady losses to Ukraine's human resources - except to massively underrepresent them? (as deception to keep up morale for their troops' losing battle, keep cash and supplies coming in and sustain public belief by far away onlookers, so more would die). Ruled by western skepticism/determinism and sacrificial sentimentality, depressingly predictable
     
  25. Like
    AlexL reacted to Boydstun in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Now dead
×
×
  • Create New...