(Ignoring for a moment that this sentence is a bit non-sensical ...)

3. therefore there is no space for any further events because infinity can't be used in mathematical operations. (Hillbert hotel problem) — SpaceDweller

It's a futile pursuit.

Hilbert's Hotel is counter-intuitive but does not derive a contradiction.
Wittgenstein gave a simpler (less technical) argument to the same end, not a contradiction either, but rendering an infinite past counter-intuitive more easily.
Seems they fall back on sufficient reason, so that's what's meant by "absurd" here (yes, Craig has used that word as well) — no sufficient reason, our intuitions violated.
Craig's 1st premise is a special case of sufficient reason.

Yet, what about a definite earliest moment, then? Say, 14 billion years ago (as of the other day)?
Well, why not 20 billion, or, in fact, any other age?
Again, no sufficient reason. Not when temporality is of the universe, and that's what we already asserted.

So, we've hit a (logical) limit of sufficient reason. It's metaphysics anyway, so kind of inherently suspect.

By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration. Call it "edge-free" if you like. This option itself seems counter-intuitive, at a first glance at least. Yet, it might be worthwhile.

There are other reasons to bin these cosmological arguments.

if one begins an argument by assuming what is to be proved, this implies that argument is "deductive"? — jgill

I think meant it the other way around, sort of.

Purely deductive arguments are non-ampliative.
So, if a purely deductive argument is put forth to prove that G's exists, then it's begging the question.

@Jackson, feel free to correct me if I misread.

(edit: forgot to quote jgill)

What Turkey Wants From Sweden and Finland in NATO Expansion Spat (Bloomberg; May 17, 2022)

• No Kurds
• No restrictions on Turkey's arms trading

Mainly targeted at Sweden.
Might actually speak in Sweden's favor? :chin:

Some of Ukraine's success repelling Russian forces is apparently due to some training sessions with UK military personnel. Efforts that came about after Russia assimilated Crimea.

Doesn't Russian law prohibit sending conscripts into war outside Russia? (If captured, they'll hopefully not be sent back in Putin's arms, whether having the law on their side or not.)

Putin's Russia, the invader, failed to swiftly take over Kyiv and capture Ukrainian leaders, succeeded somewhat with nuclear intimidation, succeeded in ruining parts of Ukraine (destroying, looting, killing), prompted Sweden/Finland to seek NATO membership (the rest of the north are founding members), succeeded in suppressing/removing other voices at home (for some time), succeeded in propagating particular narratives (propaganda-style), failed to respond timely to concessions thus making diplomacy increasingly harder when allowing bloodshed and ruinage, may have triggered making haters out of many Ukrainians (including Russian-speaking), ... Some successes some failures, with Ukrainians on the ground being shelled?

And thus Putin's narrative (propaganda-style) has been adopted and propagated. :up: :grin: Worked.

With the kinds of raving and ranting here (and roughly everyone, including in history, being evil), maybe one shouldn't have high hopes for peace (in Ukraine), eh? :D

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk.

, diplomacy :up: The more the better

I don't think anyone is simply declaring that Ukraine is winning, will win, militarily.
Yet, note that Russians like Yuri Podolyak and Vladlen Tatarsky have commented on Russian military failures and criticized Russian efforts. (Careful with the words people, cf polonium.)

My comment was about the continuing implicit denial that the Kremlin can be moved.
(And, in contrast, Ukraine can be moved and should be convinced to give up.)

Russian Tycoon Criticized Putin’s War. Retribution Was Swift.
The New York Times
May 2, 2022

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 14
Institute for the Study of War
May 14, 2022

Whatever NATO's decision, Sweden/Finland aren't threatening Russia. Putin's Russia is threatening...a few others. Going to be costly. Hopefully a nation of haters isn't in the making with Ukraine. Some progress seemed to be underway.

Are there any indications that Putin wants to see Russia (sustainably) surpassing the Chinese neighbor? (in the usual ways, power in particular, economically, control, being heard/respected on the world stage, whatever) Having to rely on China might be like a thorn in the eye. Resources/territory could go some way.

Maintaining peace often means a measure of friendly, reliable relations among societies, at the very least dependable indifference. And internally, reasonable treatment of people. Openness/freedom/fairness can help, fear/posturing/subversion/aggression the opposite. And making genuine efforts (in good faith) can help. (No one is expecting France to attack the UK or to interfere significantly in internal UK politics, despite past centuries of hostile action; it can be done, it's non-hypothetical.)
"Politics and governing demand compromise."
How to achieve something like that with respect to the Ukraine-Russia situation...?
In some ways that ship has sailed, new orders coming out of the Kremlin would do it, ...

, in 1543, the founder of Protestantism launched a rather anti-semitic treatise.
It's an aspect of what religious faith is, like "Unwavering Faith".

, and it's ruined an impressive amount of Ukraine.
Don't have the figure handy; some engineering firm made some estimates a while back.
I doubt the destroying party is willing to pay up.


@Apollodorus, instead of all your quote mining and kooky comments, you should try spending some of that time drawing up connections between and activities of these people (incomplete list):
Not an oligarch list as such, but they're in "The Club". Hic sunt Dracones.

want an aggression punished — Olivier5

Deterred at least (apropos) :up:

:)

One cannot declare peace if another declares war. One can engage either way. Peace is gone with one assailant. The (logical) structure is akin to war taking one, and peace taking all. Simple enough, though not heartening when(ever) peace is preferable over war.

Russia shelling Ukraine is like that. Presently, peace (and less suffering) requires Putin making such a decision, giving such a command. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in sight right now.

What can be learnt from this thread: Countries are evil. Organizations are abominable (well, military ones at least). People are fassholes. Or just stupid. @schopenhauer1 is vindicated. :up: :smile:

Yeah, America's history in South America is a disgrace. Quite something else to have first (or second) hand experience though. — Isaac

Sure, but not in this case (Venezuela).

A bit peripheral here...

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-says-us-military-plane-violated-its-airspace-2021-07-23/ — Isaac

Two of my colleagues are Venezuelan; they fled with some of their family members.
Apparently, the situation there is catastrophic. :sad: (to the point that we're not asking one of them about it, we'll just hail The Beatles, their favorite band)
At the moment, all bets are off when it comes to Venezuela.

Suppose NATO was to close up — thought experiment

Here's one hypothetical scenario:
Putin's Russia would roll over Ukraine at some point (after much destruction); install puppets (Kremlin); bring mercs and hunt Ukrainian resistance mercilessly (they'd now be "terrorists" especially in all Russian media); reinforce Moldovian efforts westward.
At some point (with the aid of infiltrators and propaganda), threaten/scare/bully other border nations; depending on feasibility (plausibility of propaganda/excuses), look into making them proxies, perhaps pick relatively smaller nations.
"♫ I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons // First we take [Ukraine], then we take Berlin ♬" ;)

A hypothetical thought experiment:
Suppose NATO was to close up, hand the keys over to the realtors, and the (now former) members were to replace Ukraine/Russia attention with something else.
There are plenty of worthwhile causes; resources would be freed. (A personal favorite of mine ✍ isn't all that realistic ☮ unfortunately.)
Various scenarios would have varying likelihoods (and consequences), so that's the thought experiment.

Caught On Camera: Russian Ambassador Attacked With Red Paint At Victory Day Event In Poland (May 9, 2022)

, Sweden/Finland joining NATO might even have a positive influence on NATO. :up:

, NATO is (Muslim) Nazis?

Kremlin critic Vladimir Kara-Murza detained in Russia (MSNBC; May 5, 2022)

At least Chomsky hasn't been stuffed into a jail cell (or poisoned) only to be heard from via his wife.

Some numbers ...



The Majority of American Muslims Believe Abortion Should be Legal in All or Most Cases
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
May 5, 2022

America’s Abortion Quandary
Pew Research Center
May 6, 2022

Would the numbers be substantially different if put to a vote?
I can picture campaign circuses and people on soapboxes... :D

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich — Isaac

... collaborative monopolization for mutual benefit?
So, this is where capitalist enterprises can overcome competition that's advantageous to consumers.
I think it's an old faultline of capitalism, that can become more pronounced the larger the enterprises.
Where it becomes a wicked nuisance, is when a societal dependency on the product has been reached.
A bit peripheral in this thread I guess.

"The War Is Getting More Dangerous for America, and Biden Knows It" — RogueAI

Hard to tell how much Old Joe Knows. His age is reportedly starting to show.

, you continue to describe Putin's regime like an ("immune"/"untouchable") automaton bombing-machine, and, in that context, Ukrainians as meek humans (in contrast) that should just surrender.
If that's so, then guess who's next?
The Ukrainians aren't that meek; not automatons either, but apparently they're not bending over; seems a bit like their hatred is solidifying (perhaps moving towards extreme). :fire:

Putin's (ambition)appliance already snagged Crimea; t'was a walk in the park; an hors d'oeuvre?
Ukrainian NATO membership was already conceded by both NATO and Ukraine (albeit not committed to official paper and stamped and sealed); bombs are still falling; OK, not going to cut it, not a peace-maker.
The de-Nazification thing was a hyperbole; heck, Putin has his own outnumbering those in Ukraine; doesn't look like a peace-maker.
Putin has shut down voices in Russia that he doesn't like — keep in mind, Putin's Russia is the invader doing the bombing here, that's what's being protected heavy-handedly.
Zelenskyy has tried to get together with Putin; not much luck there (now Zelenskyy's attempts at diplomacy are "farcical"? :grin:); apparently no peace-maker here per se, which would have been :up:.
Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and Putin wants everyone to know so, wants to deter/threaten/scare/bully everyone.
Taking Putin's ☢ posturing seriously made his regime the top immediate existential threat to a lot of people, against which any (supposed) existential threat to Russia pales in comparison.
Removal of every combatant in Ukraine and handing Putin the keys to Ukraine might well be a peace-maker; no guarantees, though, especially if Putin's intimidation strategy successful.
Besides, Putin's Russia pushing up against Moldova looks great on a map; Transnistria is already in the process of being "converted" (vaguely similar to Donbas).

:point: Maybe you have something in mind that would please the peace-gods? :victory:

Meanwhile, keeping the attacker occupied on multiple fronts (say, some sanctions here, some diplomacy there, some talk of Swedish/Finnish NATO membership, etc) is a traditional approach, while hoping peace can be reached.

Sucks to be bombed.

Inside Zelensky's World (Apr 28, 2022)

(article cached by google, in case you hit a paywall)

, I don't think you quite caught my meaning, but, no matter.

@Literature_Lady comments:

@bykenarmstrong comments:

Is this really the move in the US? :sad: If so, then I suggest females in the US relocate.

... are we ... are we the peace mongers? — boethius

Try peace-mongering Putin. :smile: (it's a "truth or dare")
Takes two to tango.
*cough*

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

And the Ukrainians aren't bending over. And are willing to use force to defend themselves. :shrug:
But, getting together at the negotiation table (or diplomacy) surely is desirable. Let's not try to stop that.

, my emphasis:

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war. — ssu

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/victorian-liberal-bernie-finn-praying-for-abortion-ban/101041168 — Streetlight

Looks like Finn is lying, or misrepresenting at best. There aren't any baby killings. I thought there was something about "not bearing false witness" (or however it went) in his book?

Or how else do you propose that the male might carry some of this responsibility? — Metaphysician Undercover

By not being able to impregnate women, well, unless they plan to, with them.
Problem solved, no more abortions. :up:

I’ve seen it first hand in a local anarchist community — NOS4A2

How many people are we talking here?

(I guess Michael Poole's make-shift sheds on the West coast, and the A-Zone in Winnipeg, have some folk, sometimes fewer, sometimes more; nothing to go all "Eureka" about though.)

, , why not have males carry some responsibility here, instead of males just legislating females' bodies? Pregnancy "takes two", right? Suppose the female part of the population rose to vote that in, what do you think would happen? Perhaps if and only if early abortion was made illegal?

I'll readily admit to having an emotional attachment to life. Yet, a couple of months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that. That's not a person. My neighbor's kid is. It's more like a cyst. No more a person or conscious than pre-conception sperm and egg. And that's a difference that makes a difference. That said, it's not like abortion is a positive thing (anti-natalists not invited).

^{Some Christians on abortion: We don't care about bodily autonomy or individual choice! We're trying to protect innocent lives!
Some Christians on COVID-19: We don't care about protecting innocent lives! We care about bodily autonomy and individual choice!}

(rant over) :) (nothing to see here, move along)

:up:

Males that don't express they want children, yet are interested in sex, get a reversible vasectomy (or something to that effect).
Legislation and medical science to work out the details.
(Could incidentally prevent some pregnancies from rape.)
Simple, huh?

^{The Guardian via Facebook (May 3, 2022)}

"FBI diddit" :D

Who did Ray Epps work for? (Oct 25, 2021)

Maybe it's a longer-term plan of Putin's after all to connect the Donbas and Transnistria, enrolling them in Russia.
(At least I imagine it's on his wish list.)
Extending Kremlin's influence power control takes a bit of strategizing.
Meanwhile, a wrench or two has been thrown into the cogs.


, this is as good a time as any to tell the Ukrainians that they live in Putin's backyard.
I'd recommend not doing it while in Ukraine tho'.

Thanks, . :up: I now have to put yet another darn book in my to-read queue.

"Dmitry Kiselyov about nukes and Britain"

graphics at 17 seconds and then at 1:27 — Jamal

Erasure of the UK + Ireland (× 2) is a couple of buttons away... (Leveling Kyiv surely would be a trivial matter.) I'm guessing, in principle at least, others could wreak havoc on the British Isles as well, but just have different aspirations, no particular posturing. (France has nukes.)



Elsewhere, some people, ripe for manipulation, bought Putin's stories wholesale ...

... which then made it to the streets.

Never heard of Laissez-faire. Any chance of a quick summation? — I like sushi

Not much to it, in general it means "leave it be", "don't do anything on the matter", tending towards anarchism in political contexts, "none of your business", sometimes perhaps "live and let live" in social contexts, something like that.

Querying google with "define laissez-faire" gives:

Would that include laissez-faire on drugs, (Mexican cartels, veterinarian pharmaceuticals, etc)?

Describe an alternative then. — Punshhh

The end of states and the reign of private property. But this is not quite the thread for that. — Streetlight

Do you think that's realistic, though? (on a large scale, or globally)
I'm kind of thinking that chipping away at all the wretched exploitation is doable.

(Anyway, sorry for the side-track, maybe something for a separate thread.)