Resigning and moving on is not really resigning though is it as you’ve merely transformed or exchanged your game for another (easier/harder)

Euthanasia says otherwise regarding your second point.

I will take you up on the offer of having the last word as you put it. I’m here for for honest intellectuall discourse. You’re here for one-up-manship or to claim some sort victory when it comes to debating issues. Whatever it is you are trying to achieve with your last sentence it seems instead of strengthening your argument it weakens it.

Running away like that is nothing more than intellectual cowardice for the fear that you might be shown up somewhere along your reasoning/argument.

Oh and feel free to have the last word on any of the above points I’ve raised. Or not.

Now I’m out of here.

Any life affirming philosophy is good but without any of the wishy washy philosophy which can seem new age etc.

The actual problem being faced is the outdated idea of putin trying to rebuild some sort of empire (which is doomed to fail) … also the Chinese guy doing the same.

I don’t see how the age of empire building could exist in the nuclear age. China and Russia need to let go of this ideals and embrace globalisation.

The above is my reason against nuclear strikes but I balance it out with the necessity to do so in extreme circumstances…America as a new nation has not expanded territorially ever. These other old nations Russia China are clearly stuck in the past.

You might say it’s fine if China takes Taiwan or Russia Ukraine … it is not and never will be the sovereignaity of any nation state threatened by wanna be napoleons is an enterprise doomed to fail.

The ramifications of this at geo-political level are many and for the us citizen even more so.

1. Sending China a clear message regarding its future territorial claims.

2. The re-alignment of Middle Eastern oil producing counties back into western views if not neutrality.

3. Reduced inflation for the us / Europe citizen.

As for the rest of your post I do not know enough about western military capabilities to fully address your points but I’d like to think we lead the way in the techno/military capabilities

Let’s give in to a madman’s demands shall we?

Very easy and surgical attack on important Russian targets/military infrastructure. Loss of American lives ? Minimal …

Taking out putin would be top of the list.

The only problem is of course the age old one. The nukes. Without fully knowing the extent of your enemies capability to strike back even after such important targets are taken out then it does sound naive although my prediction would be not that great.

The Russians would surrender…maybe not embrace us but hey that’s democracy and they can then start electing leaders rather than have dictatorships run things aground

The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes, they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers...

Some quote by some guy

It would certainly send a message to China for sure. The war would be over in days. This passive approach is costing more lives than it is saving.

I mean China has similarities to Russia although more advanced and superior tech and manpower wise.

It would make them think.

In the face of it it’s better to send the message now as a show of strength than later when China considers making its move in that area.

Just tell Biden to go Bush on Putin. Pre-emptive. Also tell Biden not to give two craps about Europe if it becomes collateral damage in all this.

Russia does not have the capability to cause significant damage to US soil if at all.

It’s time we brought the war to Russia.

I think you give the elites to much credit as for politicians most have no principles and are naive.

But then because anyone can make it we all have the same flaws.

No doubt Russia is using the same logic you’ve outlined to gain their advantage.

Both can play at that game.

Conceding territory for such idealistic reasons is misguided.

Oh and I love the billions souls and ecosystem here on earth. Very very much

Does not require is so vague here and that’s the great thing about it.

Dismantling Russia won’t be easy as we don’t know how rusty or even effective their weapons are.

Under the pretence of de-nazification the west should just get on with it and start invading.

Don’t know how effective or working their dead hand is at the moment I.e subs with nuclear launch facilities in unknown positions,

I’d say launch coz putin is starting to get a bit tiresome as is this war.

Not to clued on the NATO agreement. Let’s assume Poland of its own accord steps in and later attacked by Russia…at this point then does nato get involved or not ?

In the face of such oppression without Russia relenting our hand will be forced to act.

The only thing worth considering at this point is small scale nuclear warfare worth it ? It’s certainly not within the madman’s contemplation to use those nukes with the aim of ending the war and force Ukraine to give up.

It’s then that we have to act and employ mutual destruction…who wins then ? Certainly not future generations who will live in a poisoned planet.

This is the thing with nukes…either everybody should have them or none. Ukraine of course should not got rid of them nukes and if they hadn’t we wouldn’t be in this situation.

This 70year old putin with nothing to live for would have different thoughts if he was younger so now we’re being held hostage by a senile old man and I being young will give up my life to defend the principle that war is evil. In most contexts and this being a perfect example of evil.

The west does not want to fully get involved directly yet. Maybe we should.

Maybe Poland can start demonstrating their capabilities with or without infantry.

What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat…I’d say risk it for a biscuit.

Ad Hominem = To the Person (Latin). there is no ad hominems here as both authors are dead. Also i did not attack any of their philosophical arguments by calling them idiots merely expressing my view on the significance of their thought on western philosophy. It was a simple ranking exercise.

Now you came along this thread and tried arguing with a dead man by picking up the quote I posted from Kierkegaard and in your infinite wisdom either expect me to defend a dead man’s logic (btw there is no defence required on my part as his paragraph is watertight and you don’t understand what he’s actually saying so you try to nit pick it logical inconsistentcies where there are also none) or expect him to rise from the dead.

To re-iterate I have not committed the ad-hominem fallacy as you suggest by downplaying the importance of their work.

I thought I’d point the topic in its rightful direction as the point on the matter was made.

Most empiricism stuff and deductive knowledge through logic can be certain. 2+2 = 4

That does not matter. Humans still don’t know how consciousness is produced in our brains even with dissection, MMR, MRI, etc

Not really an ad hominem as such. I mean Garry Glitter and Jimmy Saville probably made ok music. The fact that both turned out to be pedophiles SHOULD be held against them.

To be frank I still can listen to Michael Jackson’s music without committing any ad hominems not because he doesn’t deserve it but I guess his work does stand for itself…

Me calling him a pedo and STILL listening to his music does not create any cognitive dissonance when playing billie Jean.

Don’t get me wrong from a literary point of view they can express themselves fairly well.

I get a sense that he has a superiority complex compared to his fellow “creatures”

am alone in the midst of these happy, reasonable voices. All these creatures spend their time explaining, realizing happily that they agree with each other. In Heaven's name, why is it so important to think the same things all together.

Sartre (amongst his catalogue of brilliance and bullshit)

Well they’ve got the respect conferred to them by that prize and their fans but not mine.

If Kierkegaard is regarded as the finest proponent of existential philosophy then these French fella’s (Camus and Sartre) are mere footnotes in that overall thought.

If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?

- The Sum of All Existentialst thought and Movement is the above thought by Soren Kierkegaard

I know.

I do sometimes feel like that in my ability to comprehend the wave particle duality of light.

This is purely from a conceptual point at this time but I do not feel discouraged.

The optimist invents the airplane the pessimist the parachute.

Both ways of thinking are necessary.

Survival can trump ethics anytime and in some extreme cases has lead to cannibalism.

This should not occur as it’s not really a dog eat dog world out but some make it so

Personally when it comes to my dog that I’ve bonded with if I was forced into this choice of eating the animal to survive I doubt I would do it. I’d rather die than cling on to life at such primitive existence.

As for a lamb, the question contains the same moral dilemma still though the humane murder of it would not play on my mind as much as that of killing a dog, a companion and loyal friend.

Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree with this justification.

Let me give you an example. I bought a football jersey a few years back and after a while it got worn out. At the time it was my favourite. I felt like I had style as well as serving it’s basic functionality that clothing does. Any other t-shirt would serve the same function but this particular jersey had 3 things that made it valuable to me.

1. The football team that I’ve lived since I was a kid.
2. I felt good wearing it.
3. Limited Edition. It would not be for sale in future seasons.

These are just my reasons.

For other possessions such as housing cars etc it’s got to do with its function and the ability it gives you to live a healthy and comfortable life.

Sentimentality was a big thing for me back then and to some extent it still is when it comes to the shirts I buy

No new direction at all. Wittgenstein thought aligns itself quite well with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Unless you want to build chairs that you don’t want to break easily under certain conditions I.e collapse as QM alludes to

Then what will? And thanks to his bullshit it’s better to doubt then be certain, for certainty could also be BS.

But there is no doubt here for my tools of observation that perceive the object are only for the recognition of its existence. Holding that my apparatus (eyes, telescope, microscope) are not being fed an illusion of the object being observed.

Because then we have a problem as to doubt what I perceive is to admit that it’s a convincing holograph with state properties.

The point is this Ozzie, explanation is only an aid to understanding reality for Perception achieves the same thing without it.

Then explanation can only be useful if it’s aim of being the descriptor of such observation is as accurate as perception was to those laws it tries to comprehend.

A bit extreme and unprovable if it will have the effect you desire. Although the cause is noble suicide is not the way.

I understand your confusion. If perception was all there was then assume we had no outlet for explanation. Perception and not just cognition would explain emergent behaviour of the laws of physics. The constants and the variables.

Objectivity need not - does not - require that we all see the same thing. It does require that our explanations be consistent. — Banno

Then, if objectivity owes itself to its perception then the requirement of explanation is not required ?

That is if observation is universal. Otherwise frameworks are required which Einstein provided.

If my taste preceded compassion towards the animal yes. Otherwise no

Do you have a pet ? Let’s assume an unlikely scenario a post-apocalyptic world where eating your dog ensured your survival…would you do it ?

When I eat any meat product I give little thought to the moral and ethical consideration. For eating is such a routine habit that it overrides any sort of rationalisation I might have. At least at that point in time.

The fact is some do and choose the lifestyle that avoids meat and to extreme derogates of who are called Vegans.

I do not intend to cast judgment on either lifestyle but wish for a better understanding. For example impressionable people upon visiting abattoirs have a re-evaluation of their dietary habits and others don’t.

This is the aim of this thread the justification or lack of for either lifestyle choice.

To many assumptions on your part for me to address fully.

Regarding the spread out into the “darkness of matter” as it’s part of the one then it’s part of the whole.

Therefore if there is only one then we come back to solipsism.

Though ego might dismiss the existence of other which is where solipsism falls short.