Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

    6830
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    146

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. You are speaking to a guy that literally believes Q is a real person, and everything about that. Indeed, the missile missing was a catastrophic error, but the website he links doesn't get into the evidence that it is the missile that they claim it is, which is crucial to demonstrating that the Ukraine did it on purpose. Frankly, I think it is most likely that the missile operator was "drunk on his ass" like the article suggests as an alternative explanation.
  2. Clearly it isn't justified in general for any state to constrict your freedom of movement, but at least all you really have to do is read the paperwork. Eh, you're probably trolling. Didn't even try to answer the OP's question.
  3. Well yeah, that's how legal documents work. It's not cool to trivialize a serious issue (escaping the USSR) by suggesting your stupid mistake (not bothering to read) is at all comparable.
  4. Yeah, Russia is heroically trying to save the people of Ukraine, led by Putin. If it wasn't for the West, people would stop dying. Russia would be able to unleash freedom upon Ukraine. Yeah, Russia was always so nice ever since Putin came to power. Why would so many countries react defensively.
  5. People use that phrase when they have some doubt, usually about the future. Or it's a way of expressing "I have no doubt about this, so it's not like I would actually lose the bet." You seem to be saying "well, it's not actually a bet if you are certain!" That's the point. Otherwise, you are just asking about the morality of gambling. Pretty much a nonissue, although it depends on why you gamble. Either that, or how to deal with risk seems to be the a real question. The answer to that depends on the values in question and how to compare them.
  6. I'm doubtful that it could be validated. We could guess maybe. I mean, it really depends on how extensively the USSR bothered to spy on specific individuals in the US. But I don't see an advantage of them doing so, except as a tool of propaganda whenever possible. Defectors of the Communist Party were likely tracked, but since Rand was so young when she left Russia, and she was never trying to be part of the Communist Party, I doubt they would have done anything. It's not like they could blackmail her. If she wrote in her native Russian, and had specific followers in the USSR, I think that would have changed things.
  7. And if you want to make a very general point that there are some points of affinity, then your main thesis really is centered around the way that you think Oists get Kant wrong, and fixing that. This seems partially motivated by interest in German philosophers, in the sense that you want to share the value and insight you have found from reading them. All of these things are fine. If you really want to dive into philosophical thought here, and really mine the value from these philosophers, you should consider more about the technical terms that you use to explain your thoughts to yourself and others. Otherwise, just don't use the technical terms - if you need the technical terms, then you aren't presenting in language that a layperson can understand. I'm saying this because what you write is interesting, but I was disappointed because you didn't engage 2046 on what you called academic technicalities.
  8. You can trust your own mind and memory, to the extent that you know you have used the proper methods. Memory and cognition are fallible, meaning that you should recognize when they are probably incorrect. When are memories probably incorrect? When you go to verify your claim but then fail to find that verification.
  9. Okay, which is useless on the Internet, because memory isn't always reliable. Even for the vast amount of knowledge that I have, but don't have a specific source, I know how to find old sources, or new sources that confirm the same fact. If you can't do that much, as far as I'm concerned, you're just telling me a dream that you had. On epistemological grounds, if you can't verify your own memories with sources, you shouldn't trust those memories. "I remember, it's real, I swear! But there's no evidence I can provide you because the truth is being suppressed." This is a form of argument used by conspiracy theorists when they are pressed for evidence but they have none. Instead of providing stronger evidence, or better reasoning, you have resorted to going on about suppression of truth, claiming that your memory is good even when you don't have anything else to show me, or using as evidence the reasoning of literally fictional characters in fictional settings (Atlas Shrugged is not a dramatization of the world we live in, but a dramatization of the world that could be). You're not following it very well though.
  10. No, I said you will not be able to trust any of them. Or actually, not trust them one iota is what I'm getting at. Of course you shouldn't blindly trust anyone. It's more like I'm saying that the level of distrust is at a level of distrusting Western values altogether. I don't think you mean to do this. I mean, it's not that difficult to provide some hard evidence that NATO has nefarious monetary motivations, or that anyone wants to keep the war going. You've got speculations. Then again, at the level of distrust you have, I know that you would require a lower standard of proof than me to demonstrate wrongdoing.
  11. I'm not conflating them, I think that because you (at least, I think you are trying to say that NATO should be viewed as threatening) do not consistently hold Western values, you necessarily cannot trust any Western leader. Or any Western leader you would support is actually more aligned with non-Western values. This isn't based only our conversation here, but other post of yours including truly thinking that January 6 was a false flag operation. It's not like you have brought up once your evidence that NATO is misusing money or has any intention other than acting defensively. You have not argued either that NATO is even participating in the conflict. It's pretty much "well, it's socialism - which is already anti-Western - and socialists literally desire people to suffer, therefore we know off the bat that Western leaders simply will always have ill intentions." I already said that you are actually talking about neoliberal mixed economies, to which your best response was basically "I'm talking about the socialist parts". Not to mention that you didn't provide evidence that there are Western leaders deliberately causing suffering and are socialists. What you provided was a villain's line of thinking from Atlas Shrugged, which apply to a specific fictional context only meant to illustrate a specific abstract idea. Not an argument or explanation of history or contemporary events. But, I'm not so much posting this to convince you, it's for working out my ideas about the Ukraine conflict.
  12. I actually didn't say that, I'm getting at that generally those who argue that NATO is/was threatening Russia pretty much revolves around how they don't trust or align with Western values generally.
  13. Generally, if you support the Russian government and its illiberal values, you will see NATO as threatening (and the West in its entirety for that matter). If you support NATO and its flawed-but-liberal Western values, you will see Russia as threatening. (Not that NATO is participating, they aren't, the idea here is just where your mind is philosophically.)
  14. In order to demonstrate that NATO is up to no good. If this is all you said, this would be fine - or at least, nothing anticapitalist, even though I think it's incorrect ("European socialism" is just neoliberal mixed economy, neoliberal mixed economies are being subsidized). But it isn't. You went on to say things like you worry that NATO wants a war to continue indefinitely because of profit motive or monetary incentive. Those are the sort of talking points that an anticapitalist would use, because it makes the point well. The context is when there are disagreements that both sides truly think that the other side initiated force. Diplomacy is about those kind of conflicts, or preventing the events in the first place. But when somebody stands fundamentally against your values in a conflict, there is no amenable common ground. There is no point when the conflict will be considered resolved. In this case, I'm only suggesting that it makes perfect sense to act defensively against Russia. I could see why a world power hostile to Western values would see this as an act or intent of aggression, but that's Russia's problem. That explains but doesn't justify Russia's actions. NATO isn't participating. I don't know you're talking about. Do you mean support by means of some money or some arms? See, this is when you start to go too far, it betrays a skepticism of anything that the West is. But I don't want to get into it with you. The rhetoric is concerned about freedom, but the content of your arguments I think contradict your rhetoric. Rhetoric is fine, but it isn't fine when it masks the content of your argument, even if accidentally. Yeah, all those wars going on all throughout Europe, from Spain to Croatia, from Sweden to Italy, in both Germany and Switzerland. They all want war, all the time. They definitely don't try to stop Islamic terrorism. It's nonstop oppression. If only they would do something like create a treaty organization for the north Atlantic region.
  15. That's not quite what I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that they are the capitalist class because they have money, but that the very thing you are criticizing is that having money is a corrupting force for many people. Since money itself is corrupting, and many political entities are corrupt, those that wield power - the political class - are therefore corrupted by money. This argument is wrong, but only it's only wrong if you accept that money isn't the real issue at stake. If you point to desire of money as bad in only some instances, you are still pointing to some kind of suspicion of money. That the flow of money should raise flags for some sinister intention. In other words, you might not be using the word capitalist, but you are still providing a negative critique of capitalism in general. Indeed, there are many problems with the neoliberal standards of government so popular in the west. The flow of money isn't one of them. You aren't wrong when you say things like: And if you criticized NATO in those terms, that would be fine. The political class in that sense is not referring to anything to do with capitalism, not even indirectly. You wouldn't be making an anticapitalist argument. But this is not the kind of criticism you gave. It was about the flow of money, how you worry that NATO would want the war to continue because it would be the desire of money of corrupt people, and no attempt to analyze how there were already pretty good and rational reasons why NATO would want money in this instance. If you give explanations like the part I quoted here, that would be sensible, but it looks more like you are trying to fit two different arguments together that don't belong together. I find this to be equivalent to "make the best out of a bad situation" in both intent and meaning. But anyway, that's getting off topic if I say anymore. Everything is fine until you get here. The problem here is the whole question of appeasement. How is it a good idea to have a "diplomatic" solution to a world power that fundamentally stands against your values? The only way I see this as being true is if the power in question is not fundamentally against your values. It's not like Sparta versus Athens, where we could foresee diplomatic solutions once in a while because they at least shared some form of Greek values in common. It's more like Athens versus the Persian Empire, so fundamentally opposed that it would be self-flagellation to find diplomacy - essentially giving in. And that's really what I'm getting at. Not the smaller discussion about money and monetary incentive. The much wider issue of fundamental values. I can oppose many things like Covid lockdowns much like an Athenian would oppose a Spartan, but that doesn't mean I reject or see these governments as equivalent to Russia (except, Russia did have lockdowns anyway). If the loss the rights is your concern, Russia is one of the more concerning countries, as well as China. I don't think it does anyone any good to try to find reasons that NATO is up to no good when Russia is far more concerning than anything NATO is up to or has done.
  16. Is it just me or does the spouting of anti-Western talking points coincide pretty well with fascism? I mean, Putin's MO has always been pretty authoritarian, and something of a third way that isn't communism or liberalism. Crying how the West is being mean to illiberal governments, upset by the power of the capitalist class (in this case, the political class to be specific), and blaming defensive military actions of others as the cause of their own aggressive and offensive military actions that originated 20 years earlier. Beware the fascist apologists. Just wait till they start going on to rationalize the policies of the new prime minister of Italy.
  17. As far as I saw, you didn't demonstrate that money is being used for some nefarious end, and you still haven't attempted to substantiate that money is being used wrongfully. You could say that there is a monetary imbalance that is unfair (which is basically common knowledge), that much is fine. The narrative you provided goes off to say that the imbalance is intentional and manipulative, and evidence that NATO should not be trusted. Apparently the evidence for this intention is that they want the money flowing, and the power that comes with this. But what power are you referring to if not the power of money to accomplish productive things? Why would the desire to keep the money also lead to the desire to make war last longer? The desire for money has nothing to do with it. That you mention money is irrelevant. What matters is if you have a reason to say that NATO has some nefarious idea in mind, because you would then say that money enables them to accomplish that nefarious intention. It seems to me that you wouldn't trust NATO even if the monetary imbalance was corrected.
  18. NATO is a treaty organization, it can't be capitalism or not, because it doesn't and can't dictate state or economics. It would be like calling Amazon capitalism. It doesn't make sense. But besides that, you are saying that some of the corruption is because of profit motive. Your entire story was about the corrupting influence of money. If money is being used in an illicit and shady manner, show me. Otherwise, the way money is being used makes sense.
  19. You both have no idea if he was a Nazi, and know that he was a Nazi. But anyway, it doesn't matter, because this still doesn't say anything about NATO. As I said about Interpol, Nazis would be easy to blackmail. The US did this as well - using Nazis for espionage and intelligence operations. It's actually pretty good propaganda, all you have to do is say "Nazi in NATO" and people's imagination goes wild. By the way, if you really think I'm being unfair, all you have to do is provide some piece of evidence that NATO is a large part a scheme to loot the US. Mostly I'm not buying it because you started engaging in some anti-capitalist rhetoric about profit and power. Just because there is an unfair structure to the way NATO is funded doesn't mean that some plot was behind it.
  20. Made up as in invented, unsubstantiated, fictional, based on hunches, just-so stories, non-objective explanations, etc.
  21. What you did is make some claims, which is not the same as stating facts. The first fact that you mentioned is that NATO was created to defend against the Soviet Union. That's where stating facts ended. I can't argue what you said is not true because it's a story you made up. So I went along and made a story just like you. It's actually the same story. I know I said "' just a scheme" but I should have said "for the most part just a scheme".
  22. Yeah totally, NATO is just a scheme to trick the US to subsidize socialism. Nevermind the fact that most European countries are neoliberal mixed economies. After all, if you have allies, why should you be supportive, they should be able to handle their own military! They don't need help, there is nothing actually threatening Europe. Russia is fine, the Balkans are doing just great; the Soviet Union is gone, there is no war in the Balkans. Everyone knows Russia isn't actually threatening, so why would even Nordic countries want to be part of NATO? It also explains why Russia was kept out, because... I don't know, but I did have a chain of logical connecting words between my sentences! Right, because capitalist leaning economies - err I mean socialist economies - control the military-industrial complex. The richer classes control the less rich classes. They don't care about global defense, their only motivation is money. * What you posted is a narrative, not a set of facts. I'm not contesting your facts, the few that you mentioned. I'm contesting the whole reasoning process.
  23. The problem here isn't the idea that a Nazi could attain a very high position in NATO. Interpol had a similar thing happen. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as far as the organization - it doesn't mean that the organization is at heart a Nazi organization. Knowing that somebody was a Nazi is good blackmail, it keeps them in line. The problem is, why did you bring it up? I guess you are saying random things, whatever strikes your mind. Or far more likely is that you are directly insinuating that NATO is a Nazi organization with the cover of "I don't know if he is a Nazi, but he might be!" Alex asked why you did this, to which you only said you ran into the idea. At least answer the question rather than stacking up questions and claims without any point.
  24. It really doesn't matter, he's just going to talk about how woke he is about Russia and Ukraine and how blind we are to the real world and victims of propaganda. Anyway, Crimea was part of the Ukraine, notwithstanding that he is skeptical that it really was (insinuating that Crimea was actually part of Russia, therefore Russia wasn't actually invading the Ukraine, but Russia was asserting authority over its own land).
×
×
  • Create New...