Ergo,

3. We're not (really) thinking. — Agent Smith

(3) should be "we're not really thinking about the world."

Let's make some predictions, Baden. I predict in a month's time Russia will be just as stymied as they are now and will control no Ukrainian cities, as befitting the military disaster the Russians are experiencing. If you think everything is going so swimmingly, Where do you predict the Russians will be in a month's time?

Was that stalled convoy also part of the plan?

:up:

To get what? — baker

To put the fire out. Do you really think there was some kind of moral equivalence between Nazi's using violence to round up and kill Jews and Americans using violence to stop the Nazi's?

People love to say they are against "authoritarianism and imperialism", and they do so in an utterly authoritarian manner. — baker

You often have to fight fire with fire.

Interesting read:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2022-03-24/putins-afghanistan

Similarly, the impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. Tell you what guys, get your own asses down to Ukraine, do without food, clean water, and heat in the freezing cold while being fucking shot at and then tell us how you want this to go on and on until bad man Putin gives up. — Baden

Maybe take a break from this for a little bit.

"Russian warship featured on Pro-Putin "RT" network one day prior to its explosion"
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-24-22/index.html

Like I said, why bother with propaganda when you've got CNN reporting this stuff?

Yes, well, if Ukraine was 80% mountains it would be a little more difficult to get those tanks through. — Baden

The Russians lost 15,000 men in Afghanistan after years of fighting. They've lost 10,000+ in one month fighting Ukraine. Ukrainians don't seem to need mountains.

I don't know why you think it's so outlandish that Ukraine can hold Russia off, especially since it already happened in Afghansitan. We know this particular playbook.

The question is can they win and at what cost. — Baden

Yes, they can win. We've seen it happen before with this particular country bullying a smaller one: Afghanistan.

The figure you site may very well be true. But surely there are significant losses on the Ukrainian side, soldiers and civilians alike. A lot o material damage Is being inited by the Russians. Even if they flat out lose, leave with tails tucked between their legs, the damage Russia has inflicted on Ukraine's structures will have to be repaired. The damage done to Ukrainian society will, of course, be more difficult to repair. — Bitter Crank

Ukraine is not going to emerge from this unscathed. Their losses will be considerable. But they have rich friends in their corner, and they're going to end up in the EU, if they hold Russia off. They'll be the darlings of the free world, if they pull it off. They'll be rebuilt.

Russia, on the other hand, is fucked. That's all there is to it. They miscalculated so badly on this. Even if they beat Ukraine into submission, the world will look at them as pariahs and their economy will sink down to something like Iran's.

We're not in a Bible movie. Discuss this like an adult or don't discuss it at all. — Baden

Seriously? David (Ukraine) fights until the bigger country (Russia) cries uncle and leaves. Even if David breaks a couple arms (damage to Ukraine), who lost that fight?

I am sorry gentleman but the rot is deep. If we ever want to be of help to anyone, the first responsibility is to a cool and detached look at reality. Without that we are useless to them. — Baden

Like Wayfarer said, there aren't two sides to every story. Climate change is real, and the reality of the Holocaust is not "Western Propaganda". This is a disaster for Russia, from any perspective.

You mean achieving aims, which it would have settled for before the war is a complete disaster for it and a victory for the Ukraine who now can't even stop the war by conceding what would have prevented the war in the first place? — Baden

I don't think anything would have prevented this war. Putin thought it would be a cakewalk, and the West was too dependent on his energy to do anything but mount token resistance.

"The big loser in terms of strategic outcome here is Ukraine. They'll probably never get the breakaway regions back and never get to join NATO and as a bonus have their country completely fucked up."

If David drives off Goliath and suffers some broken bones in the process, who's the big loser of that fight?

Given we do propaganda too, obviously. What is it? If it's invisible to us, that's a problem. — Baden

If the enemy is getting mauled, the truth is its own propaganda. We don't need to make anything up. Russia has committed a catastrophic blunder, and it's obvious to the whole world. Why should we risk our credibility inventing stories when the truth is all anyone needs to hear?

The overarching aims of the invasion are as follows.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
"Russia is ... aiming for a neutral Ukraine. Russia may also seek to hold on to its territorial conquests - both Crimea in the south and in Ukraine's east.

They control the breakaway regions now and they've got Zelensky to say his country will never join NATO for a start. — Baden

Russia can seek and aim all it wants, but after a month of fighting all they have to show is control of some breakaway areas and Zelensky backpedalling on NATO, that's a military disaster. This is not where Russia wanted to be a month in.

I've yet to see any evidence that he'll lose at all. — Baden

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/up-to-40000-russian-soldiers-killed-wounded-captured-or-mia-nato-says.html

That's in one month of fighting. Those are unsustainable losses. Maybe you think NATO is talking out their ass, but based on all the other reporting, Russia has lost gobs of men and material. Do you think they can sustain these kinds of losses indefinitely???

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster — Baden

OK, what military objectives has Russia achieved so far?

Consciousness happens in the whole organism. — EugeneW

The whole organism is not a necessary condition for consciousness. You can remove quite a bit of an organism before it loses consciousness.

They haven't even achieved air superiority. I don't think it's "Western Propaganda" to claim the military campaign has been anything but a disaster, for the reasons Wayfarer cited.

How long do you think Putin can continue losing thousands of soldiers a week and still stay in power? Russia quit Afghanistan, I can see them quitting here too.

I've been teaching elementary for 22 years. I noticed that when phones became commonplace, I lost my captive audience. The stuff I need to teach them can't compete for their attention with the content that's on their devices. Taking their devices away/making them put them away makes them resentful and counting down the time until they get their devices back. A schoolwide ban on devices might help. I've never taught at a school that had that, though.

What about a mechanical functional equivalent to a working brain?

What would have to be added to digital computation for a computer to be conscious?

People like this also overestimate the significance of the Turing Test. Passing the test doesn't confer personhood. — Daemon

Agreed, but a program that can pass the Turing Test and is begging not to be deactivated because it's conscious should certainly give people food for thought.

Do you think machines can ever be conscious?

I wasn't evaluating Olivier's comment as a response to you. I was merely highlighting the fact that, in the Cold War, there were good guys and bad guys. The bad guys built walls to keep their own people from leaving. Russians are the bad guys in this war too. We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

You remember the iron curtain ? It was not symmetrical. Not many Westerners tried to flee East. That could mean something. — Olivier5

:100:

I'm not cheerleading the Russians ... — boethius

:roll:

:up:

I'm not supporting Russia. — boethius

You must be joking.

Would you still support Russia if they use chemical/biological weapons?

I think the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. I would not support NATO's use of nukes, except in retaliation for Russia's use of nukes.

NATO will not be the first one to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. It's clear the Russian army cannot go toe-to toe-against NATO. Russia would be the ones to escalate, if it becomes a nuclear conflict.

Would you still support Russia if they use nukes?

Blame is not something people deserve. — Isaac

Sure it is. Our whole justice system depends on accurately blaming parties and meting out punishment. What kind of punishment do you think Putin deserves for his decision to invade Ukraine? If he was on trial, and you were the jury, what sentence would you give Putin for the crime of invading Ukraine?

What percent of the blame do you think Putin deserves for invading Ukraine?

Would you still support Russia if they escalate and detonate a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

:up:

For everyone of these guerrilla tactics to pick off a tank, the Russians will just shell to the ground several neighborhoods to express their frustration with that. — boethius

That's one of the reasons why they're the bad guys.

So is it not a problem that there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or is there no problem because there's no Neo-Nazis? — Isaac

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

:100:

Thanks for the response.