1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival. — universeness

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense.

2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human contracted moral crisis you may personally be having. — universeness

Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.

If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?

3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does. — universeness

Evolution is irrelevant to this question.

Morality is about individuals, their choices, intentions and actions.

4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering. — universeness

Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions.

5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers in necessary. — universeness

6. A universe with no life has no purpose. — universeness

Necessary, why? To whom?

Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me.

My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. — universeness

The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.


I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.

It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.' — universeness

It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.

A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. — universeness

Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.

Why don't you start with coming up with a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case?

Yes, everyday people do exactly that as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection. — universeness

And it's irrational for the reasons I've already given you, and I won't accept irrational reasoning as a moral basis for imposition.

Why are you preaching antinatalism then? — universeness

I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation.

Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to discuss to clear up these inconsistencies. — Benj96

I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time.

The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. — Benj96

Well, you'd be wrong.

The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it. — Benj96

It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation.

Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...

... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. — Benj96

You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.

Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. — universeness

These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. — universeness

This won't do.

There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.

You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads. — universeness

"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.

You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.

It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.

I am pro species survival. — universeness

Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.

Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?

It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work ... — universeness

I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation.

But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them. — Benj96

Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are.

You're quite right, and frankly I have little to add.

I think we have made a clear case that the common logic to justify procreation would not work in any other example of moral human interaction.

It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic.

With respect to those exact conditions what would you say? — Benj96

Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.

What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? — Benj96

The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.

If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.

The problem with this argument in my opinion, is that the parents do not have any knowledge of what they're about to impose. The life of a new person is a complete unknown. Nor do they have much influence over the outcome - that is determined by many other factors than the parents' goodwill and expertise.

... in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree with this point, and I was hoping that by pointing out some of the moral dilemmas associated with procreation I could coax some of this philosophy out of the its defenders, but I've gotten little in the way of that.

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness

If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".

Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born.

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness

If the means are flawed the ends won't justify them, so my interest is consequences is secondary.

And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of?

I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.

In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness

It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking.

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! — universeness

I'm not.

If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible ... — universeness

I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.


All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.

You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.

You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.

It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.

You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. — universeness

I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing.

Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, ... — universeness

Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.

These are just your irrational opinions — universeness

They're rational arguments, which you'll have to refute using your own rational arguments.

Human morality guides instinct. — universeness

Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral.

Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism? — universeness

No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.

Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it. — universeness

Not by/for me.

To use human suffering as the reason for antinatalism would imply utilitarianism, which is another type of "ends justify the means" argument that I am principally against.

Can you really not see the contradiction? — universeness

No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you.

The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not? — universeness

Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species.

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.

... so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value. — universeness

But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon. — universeness

There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. Appeals to instinct are no more than the individual admitting they're but a mindless beast, and what's the point of discussing morality with mindless beasts?

The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.

Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.

It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. — universeness

Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.

That's not a basis for moral decision-making.

It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice. — universeness

I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.

I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.

Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not. — universeness

Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism.

So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT. — universeness

Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action.

Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' ... — universeness

No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about.

Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question? — universeness

No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism.

Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell? — universeness

I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no".

Sure.

How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. — universeness

It would be the responsibility of whomever brings such a situation about, and after that just a very unfortunate state of affairs, I suppose, with people not only being born involuntarily but also giving birth involuntarily.

Who is the someone? — Benj96

The person who the parents know will come to be as a direct result of their actions.

Who do future parents make a children's room for, or buy clothes for?

I assumed that taking into account logical consequences of one's actions was a given before going into a debate about moral action, but I guess I'm wrong?

"Possibly" being the key word. — Benj96

And a parent will never have anything other than "possibly", whether they envision a pleasant or unpleasant life for their child. In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being.

Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? — Benj96

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition. — Tzeentch

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

___________________

It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?. — Benj96

It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?

We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit. — Benj96

And there are many things one could create that don't involve imposing monumental decisions and possibly a lifetime of suffering on another.

Also, good faith is not an excuse. Many atrocities were committed by individuals who thought they were doing good, and tragically many unhappy people are born from well-intentioned parents. Ignorance is not an excuse.

If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? — Benj96

They can't. Sounds like a darn good reason not to make such a decision on someone else's behalf.

We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. — Benj96

No, we can blame the hubris of the parents who voluntarily hurled someone into life's crucible - into conditions over which they had little control and of which they had little knowledge.

Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? — universeness

It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life.

So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc? — Benj96

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? — Benj96

No.

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful? — Benj96

The point at which they decide to have children.

Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action.

All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary. — Benj96

I wasn't aware that nature was ever consulted on this issue. What did it say?

As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business. — Benj96

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. — Benj96

That's exactly the type of power parents exercise over their children, though.

I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child.

Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them — Benj96

That does not change the nature of an imposition.

If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral.

But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. — Benj96

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.

To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.

Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.

If the antinatalism argument can be said to be boring, it is only because it's an open and shut case.

the question here was ... — jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

And I took the time to explain it to you in detail. If you're not interested in what I have to say, don't ask me to explain things to you next time.

You're not interested in hearing anything that doesn't confirm whatever media propaganda you've been binging on, and that's a problem I cannot help you with.

I'm all for not unnecessary harming anyone

My gripe was with the idea that there exists a heirarchy of sentience by which we can decide what is moral to eat (or harm) and what is not.

To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc.

To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really?

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats. — jorndoe

It isn't only about access, but also about control of the Black Sea (just like access isn't an issue when it comes to the Baltic or the White Seas - at least not during peace time). There is no real alternative to Crimea for any nation seeking that control. Consider for example also how weapon installations in Sevastopol can reach the Bosporus due to their central position in the Black Sea.

However, Russia wasn't just going to lose control over the Black Sea, but also to see it fall into NATO (read: 'enemy') hands.

You'd be a fool to think they were going to let that happen, yet that's exactly what the United States did, and Ukraine is paying the price.

It seems you are stuck in a feedback loop containing all the things Russia "should have done", how bad Russia and Putin are, etc. while all of those things should have made it exceedingly clear what the consequences would be of trying to change Ukraine's neutral status.

You and many others are stuck yelling 'Boooo!' on the sideline, without really understanding why things are happening and why they are unfolding the way they are.

The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain. — Vera Mont

I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would.

Can something that does not feel pain (in a way us humans recognize it) simply be killed with impunity? I think not.

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.

By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one?

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me.

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

The term "existential threat" in geopolitics means that a country feels one of their core strategic interests is being threatened. In the case of Russia, what is being threatened are Crimea and Sevastopol and the central position of power they grant in the Black Sea.

The importance of this position cannot be stressed enough, since it is the only western port that isn't at the mercy of NATO to grant access. The Baltic Sea is completely encapsulated by NATO, and the White Sea is bottle-necked at the GIUK gap.

With Turkey as a more or less neutral player, through the Black Sea Russia gains access to the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, etc - places that connect Russia to its strategic allies.


This is almost certainly the reason the United States made a bid for Ukraine, since countries like Iran and Syria are adversaries to the United States and have probably played a large role in its failure to control the Middle-East.


In 2008 NATO blatantly stated they wished to incorporate Ukraine, which would have included Crimea, which once again would have put Russia at the mercy of NATO. In 2013 the U.S. overtly supported, likely covertly orchestrated, regime-change in Ukraine. The 2014 invasion of Crimea was a direct reaction to that.

The 2014 invasion was only a temporary solution for Russia however, since Crimea was in a precarious strategic position, being pretty much undefendable in a future conflict.

My view is that the main strategic objective of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the establishment of land access to Crimea, which seems a very logical conclusion based on the areas Russia now occupies.

Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts. — jorndoe

That's war, unfortunately. When countries wage war, and especially when vital interests are at stake, all semblance of humanity goes out of the window. Threatening, intimidation, destruction, nothing new under the sun - for the record, the United States never shied away from any of these practices either.

Re-culturation (or "westernization", if you want the American equivalent) is essentially the modern "solution" to insurgency threats, which are always on the mind of any nation seeking to occupy others.

It also serves as a method to make the Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine a foregone conclusion. When the primary culture of the people living there is Ukrainian, a future war over it could be framed as a liberation. When the primary culture is Russian, it can only be framed as a reconquest.

The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it.

Your entire argument is based on taking snippets and tying them together into a construed narrative, while you're ignoring or denying what is blatantly obvious.

What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014? — neomac

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/04/nato.russia

Tying this in to modern society. Is there really room for Bobs? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean. Your dilemma presupposes Bobs are part of modern society, so seemingly there is room.

If you're asking if Bob can contribute somehow, I would say of course. Bob is the one who gets it, and instead of working in some place where his success is measured by productivity, he might find some way to share his wisdom so that others might not fall into the trap of becoming a Larry.

Aren't Larrys more prized? — schopenhauer1

In terms of the opinions of other Larrys? Well, who cares about those?

In terms of material wealth? Yes, but at the expense of spiritual wealth, which is a terrible trade.

Larry is happy in his abilities. He goes home feeling content, even if it is with smug relish in how much of an asset he is to his company. He’s just an asshole we’ll say. He may even view himself as rightfully “efficient” to others who he feels are just not as good as him and they need to be shown that. Maybe it’s part of his personality. We can say he has narcissistic tendencies.

Actually he’s quite friendly with management and they tacitly condone his behavior because they like that he makes them money. — schopenhauer1

I would classify being a "narcisisstic asshole" as failing - failing, perhaps not at his job, but at life.

Larry is the real tragedy here, since his lack of virtue (a state of affairs that he is likely unaware of and also cannot be fully attributed to him) denies him the experience of true happiness and beauty. Whatever shallow contentedness he may find is but dressing on the wounds. He experiences limbo at best, and hell at worst.

Bold move picking Bob. But is he really what modern day society values? — schopenhauer1

I don't think modern society's values are all that relevant.

Besides, modern society is made up of individuals making choices in pursuit of their own happiness, and Bob is simply doing the same, but succeeding while Larry is failing.

Bob is clearly the more productive one, having cultivated a strong and virtuous character, which ultimately is the only thing that can lead to happiness, and thus the only thing worth pursuing in this life.

The point I was making is simply that as long as the existential threats are generically formulated, the only thing that remains to address is what Russian demands to restore its sense of security. While if the threat was more specific one could propose solutions (other than the ones proposed by Russia) favorable to Russia. — neomac

Ok, fair enough I suppose.

What is non-specific about no NATO membership for Ukraine?

That doesn't answer any of my questions.

You claimed Russia made no attempts at negotiating about their red line, despite the fact that Ukraine has been a hot topic for decades.

How do you know there have been no negotiations? Countries contact each other through unofficial, non-public channels all the time. The fact that you claim this implies you have some insight into these.

Second, you blame the Russians for a lack of negotiations (if such a lack there is). Do you not see a clear role for the United States, in the fact that they have made statements and carried out actions that imply they have no desire to negotiate?

:rofl:

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. — Mikie

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. — Olivier5

Then you'll have to prove it.