• Antinatalism Arguments
    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.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Benj96
    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.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    If the antinatalism argument can be said to be boring, it is only because it's an open and shut case.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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.
  • Veganism and ethics
    ↪schopenhauer1
    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?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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.
  • Veganism and ethics
    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.
  • Veganism and ethics
    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?
  • Veganism and ethics
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    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.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    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.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    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.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    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?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5
    :rofl:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The red line was the actual nuclear threat, and the solution was focused on finding an agreement about the nuclear threat. Russia could have proposed the same to the US. But it didn't. — neomac

    How do you know this?

    The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades - you believe no talks happened between the United States and Russia about this situation?

    And what good are talks when the United States blatantly states it wishes to cross the mentioned red line, and supports regime change just to prove its intentions?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    They attempted all the things you named.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat. — neomac

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#U.S._Government_personnel
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So what exactly do you disagree with? — Olivier5

    Your classification of a decades old, complex geopolitical situation as "a simple landgrab", obviously.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So we agree that this is just a land grab. — Olivier5

    No, clearly we don't agree.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing. — Olivier5

    No, they were about power - like virtually ever other geopolitical decision that was ever made, western or otherwise.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? — Olivier5

    No, so why would you believe a US president when they say Ukraine is about Russian expansionism?

    Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, ... — Olivier5

    Except that these are official statements made directly in an international context on behalf of NATO, and thus on behalf of the United States, and thus reflect official policy.

    If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. — Christoffer

    Except when someone with insight into NATO and Russian affairs argues that Russia does perceive NATO expansion as a threat.

    But I suppose when expert opinions don't say what we like to hear they are better left ignored.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth. — Olivier5

    Nothing but hypocrisy. Not that I expected anything different.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5


    Constant destructive, genocidal wars all over the world, domestic human rights violations (bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, right to property, right to privacy, to name a few), utter political corruption, etc.

    That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. — Olivier5

    That doesn't excuse any of these things, nor does the excuse that it's worse in other places of the world, nor does it make someone who seeks to flee these things anything less than a political refugee.

    Some beautiful Western hypocrisy on display here - when other countries do it you cry for war and regime change. When the West does it, well, you can leave if you don't like it. :vomit:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I thought you as an avg Westerner were comparing your fate in the West with the fate of the refugees from non-Western country, which I find laughable. — neomac

    Yes, this is exactly your problem.

    You look at the West through pink-coloured glasses, apparently unable to acknowledge political malpractice when it is carried out by the West.

    Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    Don't try to change the subject.

    You tried to imply that being "free" to become a political refugee means one is not being forced - a truly vile statement.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    The fact that I have lived here all my life and people should not be forced to flee their home as a result of political malpractice? Hello?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why forced? Westerners are free to migrate to Russia, China, Iran and live there. — neomac

    Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So if you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating forced to eat from. — neomac
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

    Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests.

    From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence.

    Again, not speaking in terms of good guys-bad guys, but these are just the facts, which you keep misrepresenting.
  • A definition of "evil"
    To me, the concept of evil has always been closely related to deceitfulness and lying or being untruthful to oneself or another.

    There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.

    Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit.

    Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

    I can't believe that 360 pages into this topic people still get historical facts wrong.

    2008 NATO Bucharest Summit:

    NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Anyway, nothing new here, ... — jorndoe

    This isn't a response to what I said, so I don't know why you even bothered to repeat it.
Home » Tzeentch