Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

 - which you never researched.

A hundred times what you have. Going by your demands from me for "evidence" you don't do any independent research.

Until which time, conveniently, no evidence exists. And if you were shown it, you'd find some way to deny it, or dismiss the ramifications of it. By now, I know your pretexts.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A dictatorship would have to be a "closed autocracy", I'd suppose by that system, and it follows that an electoral autocracy which they allocate to Russia, Russia is not a "dictatorship" by those terms.

You think that elections under electoral autocracies are conducted like a democracy? Come on, you wouldn't say this about Iran with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:
18 hours ago, AlexL said:

 - which you never researched.

A hundred times what you have. Going by your demands from me for "evidence" you don't do any independent research.

I am asking you for evidence for YOUR claims. I don't HAVE to research (although I sometimes do) and prove YOUR claims, only MINES, if asked to.

If you research your claims a hundred times what I have, then why don't put here the results, that is the evidence? Because you are a zombified liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, RationalEgoist said:

I don't see the purpose in continuing to argue with each other, to be honest. At this point, the "discussion" is just going on and on. Meanwhile, it's obvious that neither will be persuaded by the other person's arguments. 

The purpose of arguing is NOT to convince - this will (almost) never happen. The purpose is to compare arguments.

"You may never convince the other guy, but it's often worthwhile to keep arguing for the effect it has on bystanders. Especially his allies. L. Neil Smith"

Another interesting observation:

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.” ― Frantz Fanon (alas!!)

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AlexL said:

This propaganda movie, co-produced in 2016 by Putin's admirer Oliver Stone

  1. is perfectly visible also on YouTube, not only on the Internet Archive 
  2. is perfectly visible on YouTube also in the US

It is a propaganda movie because, as remarked by reviewers on IMDB:

"One-sided", or, the "power of leaving out". That is why you must read the other side--to see what was left out in the MSM's side (and reversed). Rather ironic, that the one side which uses POLO most extensively, should criticize that ploy about the "other side". I can safely assert that never has there been in history, such one-sided reporting and narrative-- about the certain assurances of 'winning' of the war, its 'causes', or the (un)ethical conduct of the sides. 

Only to mention one touchy aspect of Stone's predictive Ukraine on Fire that has drawn ire from 'that' side - the film shows this war's roots in a neo-fascist, neo-Nazi ideology, and which was THE first cause of deep rifts in Ukraine. Many sources confirm his account.

'That' side would dearly like to expunge the history of ultra-nationalism: it partly vindicates Putin - and is so un-Woke - and calls Zelensky-worship into question for his collaboration with them. . 

If (or rather when) the war is won in battle by Russia - however that outcome may be settled -  is when global cognitive dissonance explodes.

"If we were lied to about who the victors would be, what else has been covered up"?!

"WHY did it have to be fought in the first place, if a Ukraine victory was this uncertain - who permitted it?!!"

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

I am asking you for evidence for YOUR claims. I don't HAVE to research (although I sometimes do) and prove YOUR claims, only MINES, if asked to.

If you research your claims a hundred times what I have, then why don't put here the results, that is the evidence? Because you are a zombified liar.

Are you a troll? In an Objectivist forum one expects to see good arguments.

I can't recollect one original and reasoned argument from you. Not one.

What you produce are arguments from intimidation and attempts of my defamation to discount my arguments.

No: you need to make independent "moral judgments". For which you rigorously search for all the evidence you can find, no matter who the lead comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Yes, sorry, you are correct, it doesn't seem to be by Mark Twain, according to Snopes.

But it is certainly not by Elon Musk, contrary to what you implied.

I implied no such thing, I accurately quoted what Musk wrote in a tweet. You all by yourself imagined Musk or I was claiming it to be original to Musk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You think that elections under electoral autocracies are conducted like a democracy? Come on, you wouldn't say this about Iran with you?

No I would not. Not for Russia, too. I took the given definitions from that link, which distinguishes Russia from a "closed autocracy". I guess they consider other factors apart from unfree elections that differ from Iran to Russia.

I'm trying to grasp your general gist about various nations. Does this concern the 'moral stature' of different nations? iow, country x being more democratic (etc.) than autocratic country y, has the right to attack y for some cause - but not vice-versa?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

No I would not. Not for Russia, too. I took the given definitions from that link, which distinguishes Russia from a "closed autocracy". I guess they consider other factors apart from unfree elections that differ from Iran to Russia.

"In electoral autocracies patterns of autocratization reflect a much more direct, widespread attack on core democratic institutions and freedoms. Freedom of expression and the quality of public debate are on a downward trajectory in many countries, and this is also true for freedom of association and the liberal subcomponents of democracy. In five countries elections are now significantly less free and fair than ten years ago – Burundi, Turkey, Venezuela, Zambia, and Comoros"

That's the definition. 

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw." (The Virtue of Selfishness, Collectivized Rights, p. 105) 

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Does this concern the 'moral stature' of different nations? iow, country x being more democratic (etc.) than autocratic country y, has the right to attack y for some cause - but not vice-versa?

That no dictatorship has any legitimacy or claim to sovereignty. And that autocracies are dictatorships.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

That is why you must read the other side

Don't you worry: I do also read the Russian propaganda (in Russian), as well as exiled Russian anti-Putin media (publications and analysts/commentators).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

That no dictatorship has any legitimacy or claim to sovereignty. And that autocracies are dictatorships.

 

Accepting that, there're two autocracies (you nominate, dictatorships) in conflict.

Which one should you, the president of your country, go to war against? Which to support? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
4 hours ago, AlexL said:

I am asking you for evidence for YOUR claims. I don't HAVE to research (although I sometimes do) and prove YOUR claims, only MINES, if asked to.

If you research your claims a hundred times what I have, then why don't put here the results, that is the evidence? Because you are a zombified liar.

Are you a troll? In an Objectivist forum one expects to see good arguments.

An argument for what? As I announced from the very beginning, about 8 months ago, I will question your numerous claims about facts by asking you to justify them and I will abstain from making myself such claims.

I did indeed ask you to justify about a dozen of specific claims, you justified none, not s single one. Your opinions are based on nonexistent facts; they are provided by the sources where you find the pro-Putin opinions.

Quote

I can't recollect one original and reasoned argument from you. Not one.

Argument in support of what? Of my claims? I make none, to your desperation !

However, a few times I posted, as exceptions, my opinion pieces and brought evidence whenever I was asked to, and even if I wasn't.

For example: you claimed that Putin mentioned in his February 24 war declaration that Ukraine's failure to abide by the Minsk accords as one of the reasons for his war. I asked you to prove it. You gave me some links where some commentators believed this was one of Putin's motives, w/claiming Putin did say this. Although it wasn't my duty, I checked the official President's Kremlin site for the transcript of Putin's declaration, and the word "Minsk" was missing... Your claim was disproved.

Your reaction? A deafening silence... signaling a profound dishonesty.

Another example: I posted a piece about Putin's deep motivation of the war against Ukraine (started in February 2014) as part of a long range plan reestablish Russia's "greatness". Your reaction? "Putin's "plans", imperialism - rationalist nonsense derived form texts". And that's about all !

Conclusion: you are incapable of and you evade a rational debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
12 hours ago, AlexL said:

But it is certainly not by Elon Musk, contrary to what you implied.

I implied no such thing, I accurately quoted what Musk wrote in a tweet. You all by yourself imagined Musk or I was claiming it to be original to Musk.

Then why mention precisely Musk in connection with that saying? The subject was not Musk, and that saying was quoted elsewhere by thousands of other people !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now fully support Russia's cause in the Ukraine operation.  

Ukraine is contested territory between two empires, the American Empire and the Russian Empire.

Russia is far away from me, I care about the American Empire.

The American Empire is a personal threat to me and so I want it thwarted, defeated and even crushed in every project it undertakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

... about Putin's deep motivation of the war against Ukraine (started in February 2014) as part of ...

 

"Putin's ... war against Ukraine (started in 2014)".

So it was ~Putin~ who arranged Maidan, incentivised the Right Sektor et al, the toppling of the government , the anti-Russian sentiments of many Ukrainians, the rebel breakaways, the "anti-terrorist campaign" by Kiev - and other offshoots.

This Putin is an evil mastermind!

One logical cause, seldom mentioned, of the Russian annexation of Crimea, is that with the regime overthrow in Kyiv the Sevastopol naval base could well have been taken over by the West which clearly has prized it, with its proxy Ukraine.

You claim to have been following events from multiple sources, yet learned nothing.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

An argument for what? As I announced from the very beginning, about 8 months ago, I will question your numerous claims about facts by asking you to justify them and I will abstain from making myself such claims.

I did indeed ask you to justify about a dozen of specific claims, you justified none, not s single one. Your opinions are based on nonexistent facts; they are provided by the sources where you find the pro-Putin opinions.

Argument in support of what? Of my claims? I make none, to your desperation !

However, a few times I posted, as exceptions, my opinion pieces and brought evidence whenever I was asked to, and even if I wasn't.

For example: you claimed that Putin mentioned in his February 24 war declaration that Ukraine's failure to abide by the Minsk accords as one of the reasons for his war. I asked you to prove it. You gave me some links where some commentators believed this was one of Putin's motives, w/claiming Putin did say this. Although it wasn't my duty, I checked the official President's Kremlin site for the transcript of Putin's declaration, and the word "Minsk" was missing... Your claim was disproved.

Your reaction? A deafening silence... signaling a profound dishonesty.

Another example: I posted a piece about Putin's deep motivation of the war against Ukraine (started in February 2014) as part of a long range plan reestablish Russia's "greatness". Your reaction? "Putin's "plans", imperialism - rationalist nonsense derived form texts". And that's about all !

Conclusion: you are incapable of and you evade a rational debate.

A sophist diatribe. Exactly, you make no "claims". You show no recognition of anyone's deduction.

This war's entirety is not seen, heard, touched, "reality" that can be "proven" ostensibly by personal experience. The onus is on each to conceptualize from many, many accounts and a thousand reported events. Unless one is a mind reader, one cannot know people's motives. You go by what they say and what they do - assessing that isn't easy.

e.g. Jack Matlock ex-ambassador who was an intimate of Putin believes the war could have been averted by implementing Minsk. Taken together with other accounts and applied logic, this would appear true.

But better to let others make claims you can dismiss out of hand. The return to "revealed knowledge" again: if knowledge is not laid out on a plate for you in texts and subtexts and footnotes from 'proper' publications and writers, (or via 'good' propaganda) it apparently does not exist. You have learned that existence exists independent of a consciousness?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Go to war against neither, support neither. But also condemn both just as strongly. 

Yes. A rational leader considers war to be exclusively self-defensive of his nation, people and territory. Not "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

He won't channel arms and advisors to one or another, creating 'escalation'. He would probably lend envoys and diplomatic and other assistance - or warn of economic measures on both - in order to soonest end the conflict. If one or both had nuclear capacity, goes without saying a rational leader and other leaders would respond forcing a truce with the highest urgency. A rational individual and nation will be consistently "pro-life" (by definition). 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I go by solid facts.

Yup. But how do you know "solid"? Who says? 

"Solid" would be dropping in on the Bakhmut battle lines this minute.

One quickly learns the horror of war when it's not intellectually abstracted and popularly romanticized, and why it has to be averted at (not quite), any cost.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

He won't channel arms and advisors to one or another, creating 'escalation'.

The right answer would be actively seek to obliterate both or do absolutely nothing. Of course, presuming both countries aren't legitimate. 

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Sarcasm ?

I don't think he's sarcastic, because while whyNot is not very intelligent and makes relatively incoherent posts , Grames understands what a position would imply. Being in favor of Russia in this case requires a moral preference, and in fact a very clear anti-American position, not just anti-West. Notice that he said crush the American Empire. Although yes, American imperialism is a bad thing, there is a very concrete hatred of the country itself in this case. I'm not saying this based on one post, this is based on other discussions in other threads about different topics entirely that are nonetheless connected. 

It's not so much that Ukraine would be a direct imperialist endeavor, but that America would be harmed if the outcome is in favor of Russia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
40 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I go by solid facts.

Yup. But how do you know "solid"? Who says? 

I decide for me what is a solid fact.

Quote

"Solid" would be dropping in on the Bakhmut battle lines this minute... horror of war... why it has to be averted

No, this will not tell what is essential - the cause of this war. And who should have done the aversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

Sarcasm ?

No.  From the medical malpractice of the covid "vaccines" to the embrace of wild climate theories to attack standards of living to unconstrained fiat money creation to recklessly risking global thermonuclear war the present American government and those who support its policies are evil and a personal danger and I wish them ill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...