Why should reason be superior to say, love? — Olivier5

Why would love be something exclusive to religion?

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. As an atheist, I think it is tempting to just throw off our Christian tradition, like he tried to do, now that we don't believe in gods anymore, but what do we replace it with? The cult of the leader? Some übermensch delirium?

Christianity had the advantage of protecting the poor and powerless, somewhat. I think that's why it was so popular. To 'come back' to pre-christian paganism would mean very little and would deny this advantage. We absolutely need to keep this aspect of Christianity -- compassion -- as we move on to other creeds. — Olivier5

I think you give Christianity too much credit. I'd say any religion is a root cause for the destructive. Nietzsche wasn't the root of Nazism, it was his sisters stupid version of his teachings that she presented directly to Hitler that became the root cause when Hitler combined it with Eugenics and his teenage-like fascination with Nordic religions.

Rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy can replace religion since all religions have been the substitute to that during an era of human civilization where no clear guidelines for how to rationally think about the world existed. I have no problems being in awe of how the universe is, as it is, without spiritual or supernatural elements being added. The dreaded nihilism that Nietzsche was worried about only appears in people who just think they're free from religious and spiritual driving forces while people truly disconnected from such outdated world views have no problems arriving at balanced morals and a sense of harmony with existence. When I see atheists around me I mostly see people denying their own faith and struggling with actually being free of such faith. All it takes is a nudge to push them into whatever belief that is given to them. The number of true atheists in this world is extremely low and that is a testament to how irrational the human being really is. To be truly free of the influence of our stupid side requires an extreme ability of observational capacity; to see the irrationality in others and one self and truly reject it.

I am ambivalent about the idea of a pagan revival. The Nazis had this fascination for Siegfried and shit, and look where that led them. — Olivier5

The Nazis were uneducated fuckers who picked and chose whatever they felt was cool looking. Like teenagers scrambling together some metal band trying to find cool-looking symbols and mythology. A truly pagan revival excluding the blood rituals and such would focus more on a symbiosis with nature. Vikings were farmers and traders far more than conquerors and invaders. It's just that media... and the Nazis, blew those proportions up because it's "cooler" with warriors and valkyries than someone in harmony with their crops and wildlife.

You just failed your language comprehension test :D — I like sushi

One says that there's no conclusive evidence for neither positive nor negative, the other that there's evidence for the positive. I'd say those are contradictory. If it's inconclusive there's nothing pointing to the positive over the negative, but you say that it leans towards the positive.

I'd say you can write it more clearly: The studies have shown it to be more positive than negative, but more studies need to be conducted for it to be conclusive enough. That's more clear rhetoric.

But, I'd say there are enough studies to conclude the positive effects. Just not to extent that some argue for.

Well then, watch Vikings. I believe it's quite well done from a ethnographic standpoint. Of course it's entertainment and not a history book but there's a brave attempt at reconstructing a pagan, nordic worldview in that show. It's based on the sagas about Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons. — Olivier5

Yes, I've seen it. It's a good representation of the subjective view of the culture, but it's inaccurate from many historical perspectives. It also takes place before Vikings ruled much of Great Britain and the end of the Viking age was mostly a slow death of Viking culture replaced by Christianity. In Sweden, the most notable "end" was when all the Jarls decided on the first Swedish king, Eric the Victorious. That's where Swedish history as a Christian nation really began and the Viking age was definitely over.

No offense, but that was a long time ago.

BTW, I really enjoyed the series Vikings, as well as the Last Kingdom, which is more pro-Brit while Vikings evidently focuses more on the Viking side of things. — Olivier5

Yes, but what I mean is that most people in Britain today who's been pretty much native since those days have relatives from over here, so that's the irony of it.

Outside of that, while Vikings influenced the culture of Britain, Christianity and Britain killed the entire culture of Vikings so there's that. We only have a few pagan traditions left, mostly without anyone knowing where they came from.

The assumption from some here is apparently that, if you're not anglo-saxon, you have no agency whatsoever. — Olivier5

Except we pretty much ruled over Great Britain back in those days so we have more agency than them it seems, we formed them.

Sweden/Finland joining NATO might even have a positive influence on NATO. — jorndoe

Yes, since the Russian apologists here seem to be totally ignorant of the democratic factor within Nato and the level of diplomatic power that Sweden has had for over two centuries, we can actually contribute to cooling down the more war-mongering nations within Nato. To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic.

Again, you seem to be simply assuming some kind of threshold. Why is the number of children starving to death acceptable, but the number of children bombed not? — Isaac

Because of the intention of the act. If the intention by the US was to directly kill and starve children that is totally different from carpet bombing an area with civilian casualties. The Russian troops actively and systematically raped, looted, tortured, and executed civilians in masses, including fucking shooting children execution-style. These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. They've been reported in different regions which means it's systemic. But you can't understand these differences. You cannot seem to understand that while both should be criticized, one is sloppy, irresponsible, and careless while the other is intentionally brutal, cruel and vile.

So it seems to be a numbers game for you, yet lacking in actual numbers. — Isaac

For me? It's you people who argue with numbers comparing 20 years of a multinational conflict with three months of Russian troops in a small number of cities and villages that's systemic in nature. It's you who require a number to value the atrocities.

Exactly what I've been arguing. The intention matters. So the mere fact that Russia have brutally invaded Ukraine is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of brutally invading Finland. — Isaac

You talk just like people talked before they invaded Ukraine "they would never" was the argument. Your argument is insufficient ground for it not to happen. Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place.

We're not flipping a fucking coin because of your amateur analysis of our situation. That's fucking laughable.

Just as the fact that the US 'recklessly' (to use your judgement) invaded Iraq is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of 'recklessly' invading Finland. — Isaac

The troops' actions are systemic since it's not happening in isolated cases. The brutality is fucking obvious and the recklessness is fucking proven by how they acted around both Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia.

You ignoring the blatant evidence of how the Russian military actually acts is not sufficient or logical to conclude it not be just as reckless in invading Finland or Sweden.

All we have by way of intention is that Russia intends to carry out a military response if Finland join NATO. So using intention as your guide, the one thing to avoid would be joining NATO. — Isaac

We have no guarantee they will not invade anyway. Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them.

You simply don't understand how these things work. They can't invade if we're part of Nato, that would be suicide for them. Invading before that would however be exactly like Ukraine as there's no guarantee for us to get help from other nations. Therefore we seek security.

Your uneducated and simplistic analysis of our security situation is fucking hilarious. You have no clue what you're arguing about when it comes to our nations.

There is, if anything, better evidence for the opposite effect. — I like sushi

That's not what you said though

As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

I don't disagree with there being a positive effect, that's my point, the positive effect has been shown. I'm expanding on that positive effect with the point about general IQ not being affected much since it relates to more areas than just the ones you get positive effects on by playing video games. I.e you get a positive effect, but you need everything else combined with playing video games to get the necessary amplified effect. In basic terms, IQ is nothing without the practical application verifying to your brain what the training was for. You can push IQ, but solidifying it requires a combination of behaviors and thought processes as a whole.

Like the Aukus partnership. Why are they poking the Chinese dragon? :shade:

Hey Chris, be aware that people living in very secure conditions often don't care about the risks others are incurring. So take a guy like Streetlight. He lives in Australia. The Ukrainian resistance to Russia may mean a number of things to him, e.g.: 1) high oil prices; and 2) a risk of nuclear war. So from his very secure viewpoint, the Ukrainian resistance is a bad thing, because it may endanger his own security. And Sweden's joining NATO would also be bad for him, for the same reasons.

From his POV, if only those damn Europeans could stop their ridiculous fighting, so that the security of Australians is not endangered and oil prices could go down, now that'd be nice. — Olivier5

Yes, we should remember that if ever China or North Korea starts waging war in the pacific. Then we'll see just how moral the rhetoric is from our side to their existential arguments.

No. We are talking about Finland's and Sweden's reasons for trying to join NATO. And I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. Then you wrote something irrelevant about the US. — Olivier5

Exactly. You can mention that there's a nice restaurant in Berlin and people in here start arguing that it depends on if it's on the west or east side because of such and such behavior of the US in the past and therefore just look at how bad the US is and... nothing really concrete to do with the goodness of the restaurant you mentioned.

Last I checked the Russians were bogged down fighting a fifth-rate power, with GPSs duct taped to the dashboard of their planes, — Streetlight

Exactly... why do you think getting into a security alliance is important to be done now and not after Russia rebuilt its military capability? Even if China is careful not to support Russia now, whenever this conflict is over, Russia will be deep in bed with China and be able to rebuild through such technological collaborations.

And also, if you stretch time long enough, no one is free from having blood on their hands. The only thing people can do through time is to show what consequences such blood has, and what guilt that surfaces. Do you think Russia cares about what war crimes their troops did? You seem to have missed the mountain of backlash the US got, the cultural shame and criticism against the perpetrators of those acts. If all have historical blood on their hands, there's nothing no one can do to be actually morally good, because there's little morally good choice to be made in the world today. What I define as being less bad than bad are the ones actually reflecting on past sins. Those who ignore such acts and don't care about atrocities being made are the ones truly being the worst.

If you think you can be morally clean in anything you argue you are delusional. It's impossible to combine this grey area with your black and white worldview. It's impossible for you to balance any morality on a scale of bad and less bad. Therefore you will never understand the debate going on in Sweden and Finland and only view these things through the illusion of your uncorrupted morality.

Joining a club of war criminals whose actions percipitated a deadly war seems like a bad waybto defend yourself. — Streetlight

What should we do then? In this black and white world of yours, what action should we take to guarantee our security?

Oh go have a sop about it cry baby.

You're the advocating the acceleration of Russian antagonism while wearing the hat of 'security'. — Streetlight

I'm not advocating anything other than our right to defend our nations. You argue we have no such right.

From the "mind your manners" to swearing and ad hominems. Well done. — Benkei

I'm just putting myself on the level of this cesspool thread since that's the only language you people seem to understand. The one where you call us Swedes and Finns stupid and morons and being slaves under the US. There's no wonder there's mostly just you people left in here.

I obviously know more than you do which is why you get aggressive without offering any type of argument. — Benkei

Oh, please enlighten me on the politics and cultural discussion within Finland and Sweden, please enlighten me about what we who live here don't understand or know about what is going on here.

Or I could like, not. There is every reason to disrespect a bunch of morons — Streetlight

You know you speak of two nations and their people right now? Independent nations who seek security for themselves. So you call us morons for doing so. You can go and fuck yourself.

You don't give a fuck because you don't want to accept the choice you're making is between two evils. — Benkei

Wow, and I'm being called simplistic and black and white. Seriously.

It is and you'd be better off not joining NATO and lobby for an independent EU military alliance in which all EU members and their citizens would have a democratic say. — Benkei

Shit, you really do know nothing about our situation. And you really do not understand how slow the EU is. You really do not understand why the act to seek security needs to happen now and not in a few months or years.

And of course it's a great argument for security to think: Russia invaded because of concerns of NATO expansion. In respose, we should expand NATO more. — Streetlight

Or, you can just respect Finland and Sweden's will to seek security against Russia. This is the problem with you people, you don't know shit about us or how the discussion is going here. You don't know the ethical debate, you just strawman two entire nation's to fit your simplistic narrative about Nato vs Russia.

You underestimate to what extent the US sets NATO's agenda. — Benkei

And you ignore the reasons Finland and Sweden seek security in Nato.

And breach of air space is something that has been going on for decades. The US does it too. Both countries test response times of fighter jets and radar range. — Benkei

I don't give a fuck about the US, I'm talking about what Russia is doing to us and what we seek security against. This constant "but the US" kind of argument to just steer everything away from Russia like this as some kind of counter-argument to why we seek security against Russia is just stupid.

Around 4,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first few days of the US invasion, so if we're doing a like-for-like, they beat Russia hands down. — Isaac

You can't seem to understand what's compared here. Bombings should be criticized, everything the US did should be criticized, but it's not comparable to multiple Russian troops systematically raping and executing civilians from village to village, town to town. The difference here is the intention, what they actually do, systematically in Ukraine.

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you seem very upset to have had it pointed out that your preferred murderers and rapists are nice enough to leave you alone. — Streetlight

I answered it too. But the argument was about Finland and Sweden seeking security. I don't give a fuck about your whataboutism. If I point out the brutality of Russia and your argument is to just "but the US though", disregarding everything else being said, then I pointed out that you are comparing 20 years of a multination complex conflict that involves a lot of shit that the US absolutely should be criticized for... to systemic brutality comparable in numbers over the course of just three months. Scale that up to 20 years. Scale that up to multiple nations invaded by Russia. That's what we seek security against.

But I guess you cannot understand the reasons we have to seek such security, because it's easier to strawman our entire region to fit your narrative.

The only reason to prefer a US alliance over a Russian alliance is because the US is our thug. — Benkei

Nato alliance is an alliance of 30 nations, 32 with Finland and Sweden. It's you people who conclude it to be led by the US only, because that fits your narrative better. And you can also just say that we prefer that alliance because Russia are brutal and unpredictable. That we seek such alliances because Russia is an actual threat, compared to the US. Who the fuck wants to be friends with Russia?

Yeah because you benefit from them doing so elsewhere. — Streetlight

What the fuck are you talking about? We're seeking security against Russia because they're actually breaking our borders, conducting cyber-attacks, and are an active threat. You know nothing of our situation and make stupid arguments like that as some kind of counterargument to why we seek security against Russia. The brutality of Russia is there, there's no denying it, so why is the US act in any shape or form as a counterargument to why we seek security?

You simply don't understand what systemic brutality means.

So Olivier5's simplistic argument that because Russia has killed people in Busha it is a threat to Finland is nonsensical. — Isaac

You are the simplistic one to argue that this is the only reason. You don't know shit about our situation but you act as though you do.

Yes. At one point — Streetlight

By a few, over the course of 20 years. Russia is systematically brutal over the course of as little as three months, coming close to numbers for a 20-year conflict. And what does any of that have to do with Finland and Sweden seeking security against Russian brutality? There's no counterargument there, it's just whataboutism to brush Russia's acts under the rug. We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. Russia has proven to be systemic about such acts.

Look at what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan — Isaac

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? And on top of that, you are referring to close to 20 years of conflict. If the rate of the atrocities Russia conducts were to be continued over the same time period, what do you think their numbers would be? The US bombed blindly resulting in this, they should be criticized for it. But what Russia is doing are the most brutal forms of war crimes, brutal acts of terror that's the worst you can think of. It's not even comparable in the way you're trying to do it.

And it's also the same kind of bullshit whataboutism that has no relevance to the actual argument you are trying to counter. Russia conducts these war crimes, these acts of terror, and Finland and Sweden find security in joining Nato to not let such things happen to us. The US won't kill us, Russia could, that's why we seek security. Get that through your skull.

Ought to do? From an ethical standpoint, or from a geopolitical, strategic planning standpoint? Let's assume the latter, as ethical considerations have limited applicability in politics.

From a strategic standpoint, the Russian attempted invasion of Ukraine and the extent of war crimes committed there by their troops is an objective reminder that Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore.

If this is agreeable, then the question becomes: is joining NATO likely to improve Finland's security from the obviously significant risk of a potential Russian military operation, or not?

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

There seems to be a cognitive dissonance among Russian apologists in which they want to point out that Russia is an independent nation that is acting out of defense against things like Nato. At the same time, they cannot grasp or accept that nations like Sweden and Finland are looking for security against Russian aggressions, unquestionably and brutally proven by the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes they have committed. The fact is that Russia is the invader and the risk to the baltic region, Finland and Sweden is quite real, proven by the constant aggressions on our borders, the constant cyberattacks, and propaganda against us. These things are not new, they've been going on for years, long before Sweden and Finland even considered joining Nato, which has never been a thing really, instead, it has been something both Sweden and Finland were against in the past.

But since Russia has shown to be brutally moral degenerates on the battlefield, it's not only a risk of military battles but also of brutal attacks on civilians, meaning Russia could attack civilian populations and not just concentrate on military targets. This means that the security measures required to defend against Russia need to be much larger than both Finland and Sweden can muster, even with the now increased defense budgets. Especially in Sweden, where these risks have been downplayed by the apathy of supposed neutrality we've had for 200 years.

But now, both Finland and Sweden are seriously looking at joining Nato for the specific reason of increasing our security against the brutality of Russia. Anyone saying that this act is pushed by the US or that we are puppets of the US or any dumb shit like that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. They don't know how the national discussion is going, what the ethical debate is, or what Russia is doing every day to our nations. They simply need to shut the fuck up and stop trying to think they understand something they clearly don't. It's laughable to hear people from other nations trying to speak down on the efforts to join Nato as some kind of slave behavior under the US. For all the talk of viewing the complexity of this conflict and criticizing anyone for being too black and white because they view Russia as "bad", it's remarkable how stupid their analysis of Finland- and Sweden's will to join Nato is, or the history of our nations. It's proof that they don't have any real insight or knowledge of what they're talking about and therefore they're just talking out of their asses.

As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

IQ has a fluid range. The base IQ is set by the genetic makeup of the brain while training cognitive challenging tasks can increase the IQ by a few points. Not doing any cognitively challenging tasks will lower it by a few points. Tasks also need to be varied, someone playing chess two hours a day will not get any positive effects after, let's say, a year doing so. General IQ improvements require more than just video games. The most positive effect on children has been 3D spatial visualization improvements and reaction times on recognition, but further outside of that requires a heavy load of in-game puzzles that are varied, but even then there's a limit to what video games can provide. A kid playing games their entire childhood but skipping other activities will develop good skills in certain areas, but be extremely lacking in others. A broad increase in IQ and cognitive functions requires varied inputs and activities, which video games alone won't be enough for.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

A web of neurological maps formed by genetics and experience.

The problem with our perception of ourselves is that we are like a mirror trying to reflect ourselves in another mirror. This feedback loop of thought makes us perceive the very act of thinking about our entity to be so mysterious that we believe it to be more magical than it really is.

We are a complex biological machine that is more advanced than we can perceive and not yet completely understood in science so our perceptions have no comfort in thought.

This is why we invent religion or mystical ideas about existence instead of embracing more rational and logical conclusions based on the science we know so far.

Your "core values", whatever those are, and whatever definition you attach to that expression, wouldn't play a role in a situation in which you find yourself in possession of power and opportunity that you could exploit. (Please keep track of the nuances here). While not all in power would usurp it, when some do, that core values would have nothing to do with it. That's why cybersecurity, surveillance, and monitoring are effective means of combating corruption. They (the people in charge of tracking) would give zero credits to your wholesome goodness. — L'éléphant

Core values are values unknown to most people. Most learn what to think and believe, not necessarily what they truly agree with. Only those with core values that are absolutely essential for their identity won't corrupt them if given power. As you say,

"not all in power would usurp it"

those who wouldn't are defined by their core values, someone expressing it every day, every moment, someone who lives by their values won't abandon them if given power, merely empower those values as they are an integral part of their identity.

The problem for many is that they have no idea what values are actually true to them, or have no concept of how their values are shaped, changed, or connect to themselves. So when given power, they have no guidance for themselves, they only have instincts and emotions driving that power. They have no reason to evolve their values since they didn't have any to begin with. They weaponize the values that were forced upon them or they rebel against them without any substitute.

And the worst of this is once again as you say, "not all would usurp it". The number of people who can handle power when given it is a small minority. This is because self-reflection and being critical of your own morality and values (which helps shape actual core values into existence) isn't common practice in the world. Most people might start doing that late in their life, if at all, and then it's too late.

A child learns how the world works, and how to be an adult, but the adult doesn't know how to fully be "value-independent" before actively choosing to go down that path. And nothing in society values that process as part of the development of a human being. So the only ones who understand their own core values to the point they won't abandon them are the ones who understood it early on or understood to pursue it. Any power to people who never understood this will create emotionally driven people who don't have any guidelines for that power. And most people are like this.

Muchas gracias señor/señorita for the suggestion.

Would you like to discuss hyperreality? I've come across the idea in connection with the use of psychedelics. It's been described by people who were tripping as "realer than real". That makes it possible that this world we experience as normal people not under the influence of mind-bending drugs is a simulation/illusion; in a sense, with mind-altering drugs, we wake up and catch a glimpse of the real world!

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

I see no rational deduction coming out of that interpretation of reality so I don't really agree with that idea. When it comes to Hyperreal and Baudrillard it's mainly about how the simulation and reality are impossible to differentiate between. It's about more than just a cartesian analysis of reality and has to do with more stuff like how we invent concepts of reality on top of the actual reality we experience, and through that we lose touch with the actual reality and cannot know which is what. His philosophy is more advanced than describing it in short segments but I recommend Simulacra & Simulation if you want to know more.

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion. — Agent Smith

Hyperreality...

Maybe you should read some Baudrillard?

What would happen to a nuclear missile that got shot down? — Metaphysician Undercover

It either won't activate and dud out, maybe create radioactive contamination at the very location, but very local compared to the spread of fallout if it went off, or if it would activate and blow up, it would blow up at a remote location far from any highly populated areas. The natural counter to this would be a military operation. If everyone can counter nuclear weapons, then it won't be a counter with nuclear weapons, but instead, the act of a first strike would trigger a global initiative to invade the guilty nation and remove the people who took that decision. Bottom line, there will be an opening to remove the leaders who wanted to kill millions of civilians in other nations. For instance, if Russia were to do this and their missiles were shot down at their borders, then a global offense would most likely invade and remove the government in Russia. It would be considered a third world war, but not in a destructive way like a nuclear war would be and Russia wouldn't have the manpower, tech or military power to defend against a global offensive against them. If the US would, for some reason, do the same, then it would most likely trigger an exclusion from Nato in which all the rest of the nations in that alliance would ally with other nations of the world to remove US leaders. It would be a much different battlefield and more destructive. It would, however, trigger civil war as well since it's impossible to ignore how diverse the US population is. At least half would probably ally with the remaining Nato members and the US might even be split up just like how the Soviet Union broke apart when it fell.

But all of this is speculative of a scenario that really doesn't make sense. No one would fire off nukes if they know it's impossible to penetrate defense systems, it would be total stupidity of the most moronic kind. Not even the most stupid leaders of today would make that call since the backfire of such an action would be only severe to the nation making that decision. This is why such a defense system would be the most "peaceful" deterrent until the next world-ending weapon is developed.

Interesting that the first fire up of James Webb for observing the biggest objects in reality, coincides with the startup of the improved CERN Large Hydron Collider to observe the smallest objects in reality.

No, the lack of agreeing with you is remarkable. again, unless you're claiming yourself to be infallible, then disagreeing with you is not the same as lacking understanding. — Isaac

Did you even understand what I wrote? Probably not, or decided not to in order not to have to answer properly.

So you didn't choose the experts you cite? Remarkable! who did choose them then? — Isaac

You apologists have used the same sources over and over. I choose closer to the consensus and form my own analysis of the situation based on it. You know, actually doing philosophy on a philosophy forum. Though, since moderators allow this thread to be low on quality I can't do much when the bar is set low.

Which fringe departments would those be? — Isaac

Ideological opinions pieces and blogs used as factual sources.

Again, unless your claim is that you are infallible, people disagreeing with you about the fallout is not the same as then naively disregarding it. — Isaac

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you incapable of understanding the social consequences of the dynamic between Russia and Ukraine after the atrocities that Russia has committed? Whatever the outcome of the war, Ukraine and Russia will not be "friends" anymore, if Russia occupies Ukraine or make it a puppet state, there will be insurgencies and revenge acts. If Russia is pushed out, there will be no diplomacy between the two, closer to how North and South Korea's relationship.

If you want some daddy blogger to tell you this simple fact as a source that's your problem, I can actually use my head and analyze the fallout of what is going on. Unless you simply ignore what has actually been going on in Ukraine.

Yes. Successful negotiation does not rely on the lack of lies (thank God!) otherwise no negotiation would ever take place and the world would be at constant war. All politicians lie. — Isaac

Putin and Russia aren't just lying, they use lies and manipulation as a weapon. They've lied about evacuation corridors only to massacre civilians when they're out in the open.

There's no diplomacy to be made with lies on this level, but you are unable to understand this. If you think Russia, Putin, and his minions are on the same level as other politicians when it comes to "lies" you are simply delusional or intentionally apologetic. The truth is in the pudding, and the Russian pudding is rotten as hell.

Once more. Disagreeing with you about the difference is not the same as being unable to spot it, unless you are infallible. — Isaac

Again, what the fuck are you talking about, are you unable to understand what I actually write? I cannot discuss with someone that's mentally impaired to understand the point.

OK, so there are 41 million Ukrainians. By what means did you come to your conclusion about what they all want? Did you ask all of them? What about future Ukrainians, do they get considered, and if so, by whom? — Isaac

If you cannot conclude based on reported Ukrainian public opinion about what they think of the invasion and Russia, then you are fucking ignorant or intentionally apologetic of Russia. Seriously, maybe you should talk to some Ukrainians like I have, maybe talk to people working down in Ukraine, maybe listen to interviews and dig into all of that... well, no of course not, you just use the "how can you even know what every single one of them wants?" as some kind of argument. Give me a fucking break, that kind of counterargument is so weak and stupid that it's impossible to discuss this with any kind of intellectual quality.

You simply ignore stuff that is inconvenient for your opinion and make these stupid counterarguments.

That would confirm that there was a brutal war going on. In what way would that confirm which was the best solution to stop it? — Isaac

Oh, you mean that the war crimes, the mutilations by the torture of civilians, the rapes and executions of civilian women, and the mass graves are normal signs of a brutal war? Are you for real? There are independent investigators confirming all of this in Ukraine, there's no propaganda to this thing, these are facts and you just to brush it all under a rug.

Your dismissal of these things disgusts me and your inability to understand why these things matter for how to judge the sides of this war is beyond stupid.

Ah yes, the famous 'consensus'. How was it you measured this again? — Isaac

By having more experts saying the same thing compared to you and the other apologists using almost the same links to the same pieces over and over. It's not rocket science to follow this war and expert analysis of it, you just have to listen to more than your favorites.

And why would you go with the consensus? Explain to me the mechanism by which a more popular idea is rendered more likely to be right. — Isaac

Because it's not consensus by stupid people not educated in the matter, but by people researching the matter. But how would you know, you don't even think education is needed so I guess you are incapable of understanding any of this.

And you measure people's capacities in that respect how, exactly? Let me guess...is it the extent to which they agree with you? — Isaac

By how logical their conclusions and arguments are. By how consistent they predict future events. And by how much they incorporate new facts into their arguments. Like, you ignoring the impact of war crimes to how you position what Ukraine and Russia should do to stop this conflict. It's a head in the sand moment for you. Ignorant, disgustingly dismissive of the atrocities' impact.

No. I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). — Isaac

Do you even understand what you wrote here? Who's really throwing Ukrainians under the tanks? :shade: The lack of insight or understanding of the consequences of this statement is remarkable.

No. I can't get that into my skull because I disagree. Again, something many experts in the field also do. — Isaac

Experts of your choice, the cherry-picked ones from fringe departments who naively disregard any kind of consequential analysis of the fallout from the atrocities Russia commits or what Ukraine would face under the rule of Putin. Also the blatant disregard of what the Ukrainians actually want. The blind arguments from experts who smelled their own farts for too long and who forgot the reality of a superpower conducting these kinds of war crimes.

If you restrict solutions only to those which currently exist, how do you suppose society evolves? — Isaac

By doing what can be done in the moment and examining the events post an actual solution. Your idea of "solutions" is like trying to come up with some moronic way of dealing with Hitler in the midst of World War II, instead of you know, winning the war and then organizing society by philosophizing about the events in order to not let such things happen again. Your way of thinking would have led to the world losing to Hitler because it's naive and a fantasy and a total waste of time. Want to write fan fiction about some utopian solution to an ongoing conflict while Ukrainian women gets raped, children are murdered and whole villages are executed, go ahead, but no one cares about such naivety.

You're simply assuming a negotiated settlement would result in Putin having complete control over Ukraine. There's no ground for you to assume that's the only possible outcome. — Isaac

You are assuming that you can trust Putin. Doesn't the constant broken promises from Russia during this war kind of inform you that they're not trustworthy to follow through on any kind of negotiation? They're constantly killing civilians who're supposed to be let through corridors out of war-torn regions. They're lying through their teeth and you think any kind of negotiation will result in anything other than Putin and Russia doing whatever the fuck they want. Seriously, you are so fucking naive and blind to the actual behavior of Putin and his minions.

You see why it's difficult to take you seriously? Everything you think is black and white is assumed, without question, to be so, yet you accuse others of black-and-white thinking without even a hint of humility about the hypocrisy inherent there. — Isaac

Stop acting like a moron. Are you able to spot the difference between a literal two-sided issue and issues that are nuanced? Like, what do you think are the options for Ukraine and its people? You naively think that Russia would grant them any kind of freedom if they surrender? Give me a fucking break. Get your head out of that fantasy utopian Russian apologetic ideal. Russia would only settle for total power over them, a true puppet state. The Ukrainians don't want this, so maybe you should fucking listen to what the Ukrainians actually want and stop speaking for them. Because for them, there is NO other choice, if you had any intention of actually caring for their voice in this conflict you would understand why this part only has that side to it.

A perfect summary. Do you actually know what 'nuance' means in this context? You're claiming the 'nuance' - the subtle and complex effects and implications that are not immediately apparent - is the simple, uncomplicated reality you see in front of you. — Isaac

The nuance to see reality for what it is, good and bad, pragmatically choose a solution that is good for the people, not ideal for the personal ego of the person making the argument. And if "good for the people" is only about saving lives and not caring for what life people will have after survival, then that's not nuanced, that's blind naive morality. And the nuance I spoke about was about Nato. There's no need to be nuanced about Russia, they are pretty obvious in what they're doing. But Nato is a more complex issue. You however seem to be unable to understand where nuance exists and where reality stares you in the fucking face. Maybe you should go and watch the mutilated bodies of civilians and children in Ukraine and you might let go of that "nuance" about Russia that you advocate for.

In any situation in which experts disagree, laymen must, at the very least, agree that it is possible to rationally hold one of the viewpoints held by any of the disagreeing experts. — Isaac

Or just go with the consensus. If you cherry-pick you don't take any epistemic responsibility in the matter, you pick and choose what already fits your own personal opinion and narrative. And you know, it's also possible if you are actually educated yourself to analyze and philosophize from the facts and reports that exist openly, but you don't believe in education so there's that.

You only have your opinion, you don't do any kind of evaluation of reality to arrive at any truth, you pick and choose to fit your own personal opinion. This is proven by you ignoring and blatantly disregarding what Ukrainian themselves actually want and naively believe Russia, contrary to how they've acted throughout this war in diplomacy, to arrive at peaceful respect towards the Ukrainian people. It's an extremely naive and stupid perspective of actual events.

Ha! No, unfortunately not. Apparently advocating any strategy other than throwing more Ukrainians under Putin's tanks so we can gloat when he loses, is literally working for the FSB. I've been assured that this is "nuance" (↪Christoffer ). — Isaac

"How to strawman", an anti-philosophy paper by mr Professor.

This is exactly why you are impossible and pointless to have a discussion with. And also, Ukrainians don't seem to be thrown under Russian tanks, Russian troops and officers seem very capable of doing that to themselves instead. And I didn't say anything about you being FSB, so again, cut the bullshit.

The point you never fucking understand is that Ukrainians fight for their survival as an independent state and the world support that defense and will to exist. You advocate for them to surrender to a dictator who wants to rule over them and pull all their freedoms under his power. What's the purpose of saving lives if those lives lose what they feel is a life worth living?

That you oppose this pushback against Russia in order to keep Ukraine free from being ruled over by Putin is the very point that makes you an apologist of Russia's actions and agendas. Being apologetic of their actions doesn't mean you are them, it means you basically apologize for their actions, war crimes, and acts of invasion, something any rational person right now can't do.

And the nuance that I describe is that things like Sweden and Finland wanting to join Nato in order to safeguard against the brutality and degeneracy of Russia and its irresponsible actions does not mean we love Nato. It only means that it's the best security we have against Russia. But you can't get that into your skull, because you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. You cannot grasp a fight for survival, a will for security, and a condemnation of a nation for its crimes, while this stage is set within the already existing alliances and diplomacy.

THIS is the problem with you apologists; you live in a utopian dream where there is some kind of fantasy solution outside of the current players of the world. You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist or that blindly are about saving lives with total disregard for what the consequences of that would be. Like, even if Ukraine surrendered and Russia came to power in Ukraine and it saved lives in the short run, how the fuck do you think life would be like in Ukraine after that? Especially after the torture, executions, and rapings of civilians by Russians. What do you think such life would be like going forward under the rule of Putin? It would be a bloody insurgency and revenge for decades, all that hate set within the boundaries of Putin's new empire while the FSB and Russian state terrorize the civilians living with the memories of Russia's vile acts during the war. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to fight back and push Russia out of Ukraine. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to build some guarantee of this kind of invasion to never happen again. It's a fight for the survival and soul of their nation and the rest of the world understands this. Sending weapons and supporting their fight is to support their chance to live free of the Putin regime as well as a message to Putin and Russia that this kind of act is not tolerated.

This is what I have been saying, that people today are so apathetic and have forgotten what a fight to survive actually is. Have forgotten the risk of war in Europe. This is what is going on right now, all the talk of Sweden and Finland joining Nato etc. is all about the realization that Russia is in fact a real threat from a superpower nation. It's existential for everyone, especially us living so close to their borders and we cannot give a fuck about the downsides of Nato at this time because Russia is a much more serious threat and problem than how to define Nato as a player. And apologists seem to be unable to grasp any of this, sitting in their armchairs trying to justify Russia's acts, criticizing Sweden and Finland for being "puppets of the US" for wanting to join Nato, downplaying the Ukrainian's will to fight for their freedom; it becomes parody, satire, and a disgusting line of arguments. So yeah, the nuance I'm speaking about has to do with the pragmatic reality of all of this. A reality that doesn't seem to exist within the set rules of your arguments; which is supposed to be an ideal world based on your personal opinions about education, society, morale etc. etc. Who gives a fuck about your fantasies?