ontologically I regard every set as completely specified, just like in set theory — litewave

But this is true only in a formal system where everything really is completely specified.

However, outside formal systems, there is no completely specifying anything. For example, try specifying a tree; it's a pretty hard task even for just trees on earth right now (without even addressing questions like when exactly does a seed become a tree and when does a tree become log), but a complete specification would be able to tell us also exact moment the next individual in a species of bushes attains treeness, likewise what organisms on other planets and even other universes entirely would be a tree.

To have a "good idea" of what a tree is, to be certain we'd agree that the trees outside my window right now are indeed trees, is very far from a complete specification of treenness.

To say we know what the specification of set of even numbers in a formal system, does not imply we know exactly what the set of all trees is.

To make sets of objects in the real world you need to define apparatuses and procedures (and procedures to make your apparatuses) and then contend with all the edge cases; i.e. you have to do science in which mathematics is a useful tool but doesn't solve all your problems.

For example, a post-grad laser physics researcher I once knew, worked in a lab that dealt with edge cases by running an algorithm to simply remove outliers from the datasets entirely.

There is a branch of mathematics that deals with these kinds of issues, called fuzzy logic, as there's certainly nothing stopping us trying to make rigorous treatments of our pretty vague concepts about the real world, which I haven't looked into all that closely but maybe of interest to you.

In practice we usually don't have such complete specifications and we talk about approximately specified properties like "redness", but that doesn't refute my claim that a property (completely specified) is identical to the set of all objects that have this property. — litewave

It's certainly understandable what is meant, but in so doing in ordinary language you will still have the problem of delineation and universals and so on.

For example, a ball of red atoms.

Is the ball an element in the set? Is each atom an element in the set? Is subset of atoms of the ball in the set? What about the quantum level? Mostly these atoms are red but there will be random fluctuations that cause other colours; if photons are fired at an atom and bounce back another colour, is the atom still an element of the set? If the criteria is the potential to be red, pretty much all atoms can be red through relativistic effects of red-shifting; there are red galaxies in the sky due to red shifting, are they elements of the set of redness, each star, each dust particle, each atom and so on? There will be all these kinds of questions that need to be resolved to rigorously define what redness is and how to separate elements into the set of redness and not-redness; and the basic nature of this problem is that it goes on forever.

When formal structures help us describe things in the real world it is because those real things are in some sort of temporary stability that conforms to the formal structure and then it remains a judgement call when that is no longer the case. For example, computer "should" conform to rigorous formal rules, but it remains a judgement call if that is actually happening as memory and logical operations can be corrupted, so we remain "certain" about the formal structures in our mind but never actually certain an object we think corresponds to a structure actually does.

Of course, doesn't stop us talking about a set of red things, and that can be useful to do, but if you want a rigorous definition you'd need to solve all these problems; otherwise, the definition becomes the set of red things which I will decide on a case by case basis as I get to them to resolve all edge cases in a way I'm confident won't result in any contradictions whatsoever; which is not how a set is usually defined in formal logic.

I am proposing that we could plausibly identify a property with the set of all things that have this property. — litewave

This is exactly true, contingent on the what we mean by the word "plausible".

We can plausibly do a lot of things that on closer inspection can't be done, but finding that out does not negate that it was plausible to begin with.

In general, these kinds of ideas I would argue are best understood as naive set theory used in ordinary language.

What I mean by that, is that we have a bunch of mathematical concepts about sets that nothing stops us from using in ordinary discourse outside an axiomatic system to discuss various things; both to talk about axiomatic systems from a non-axiomatic point of view (such as to talk about what an axiomatic system "is like" and kinds of things that can be done with it using ordinary language to convey concepts to both experts and non-experts) as well as developing concepts that have nothing to do with axiomatic systems but the words and ideas of set theory are useful for the purpose.

Therefore, such informal use of set-theory language is going to have all the problems of ordinary language. We have zero problem with the fact ordinary language can be used to express all sorts of contradictions, paradox and nonsense, as well as having fundamental unresolvable problems such as delineation, universals, and so on, and throwing in some set theory words isn't going to change the situation.

That does not make it invalid to talk about sets of "everything red" for example, but we can know ahead of time that such a concept cannot be developed into something rigorous without axiomatization.

Once you axiomatize, if all goes well, you can have rigorously defined symbols, rigorously defined acceptable grammar (how you may put those symbols together), and rigorously defined permitted manipulation of those symbols (how you may move those symbols around), but in so doing we know ahead of time that we lose the flexibility of ordinary language; you can no longer just "say things" and hope to express meaning, but rather statements proposed to be true require rigorous proof.

What makes sense depends on what is being talked about.

For example, it makes sense to propose dividing the class into a set of short and a set of tall students. The meaning is clear that the goal is to either by symbolic representation of the students or then physically move them around, to define two groups of students based on height. The meaning can be clear and it can be equally clear that once we have our sets of students we can perform further set operations, such as creating subsets of those sets based on hats or whatever we please, and going on to create unions and bijections and so on.

What is of course not clear is exactly the difference between short and tall, how to handle a new student showing up (do the sets represent the students at the time of creating the sets, or then sets that represent students that may come and go, either by joining the class or then being expelled), and so on. Trying to resolve all these problems will run into all the problems of ordinary language and naive set theory, but the use of such language can be entirely sufficient to accomplish whatever the task was (forming teams by height and hat wearing for some purpose).

I rewrote the post to say "valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing." Valuing beauty is a human universal. — BitconnectCarlos

We agree here.

"Obsession" is really just a pejorative for "valuing," implying that the obsessor values the object too much. Anyone who values something can be accused of obsession. — BitconnectCarlos

That people can be accused of something without merit is not a defence in a different matter in which there is merit to the accusation.

Anyone who speaks can be accused of speaking too loudly. Anyone who eats can be accused of gluttony. Anyone alive, or dead for that matter, can be accused of murder; doesn't imply everyone is a murderer or then no one's a murder, but the merits of each case require consideration.

So in this case it is to be debated who exactly is obsessed with beauty, a whole culture, how other culture's compare etc.

Anyway, I'd loosely agree with Tzeentch: It's a symptom of modernity stemming from social media and the vast array of new treatments and products available. — BitconnectCarlos

Well then I think we are in agreement on the basic premise.

Beyond the connection to racism as the foundational psychological structure, an amplification of this beauty obsession I would argue (along with the advertising and other things) is also isolation within Western societies. The more you are isolated and without deep community connections, the more the interactions you do have are surface level and where your appearance has a disproportionate effect. Further amplifying this trend is that the more late stage capitalism progresses, the less there is even any expectation of what would have previously been called "character", resulting in appearances being even more determinative in the outcome of social interactions.

Beauty isn't just a Western thing. Even in traditional Islamic societies, women in burqas and niqabs will enhance their eyes and eyebrows - often the only features visible to the public. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm confident the argument of the OP is not that beauty is a Western thing, but that there is a particular obsession with beauty in the West, far beyond other society's, past and present, and, more importantly, far beyond any plausibly healthy level of aesthetic appreciation.

The point is not denying things like beauty having evolved for the purposes of things like procreation, nor denying that other societies appreciate beauty.

Don't you think ethnocentrism is maybe a better term than racism for your thesis. Racism emerges more a symptom of thinking one's culture/ideology/class/religious identity is superior to another and then differentiating members by superficial physical features. — Nils Loc

Ethnocentrism seems pretty vague and presumably can include healthy relationships to one's own and others ethnicity; certainly a plausible argument can be made that focusing on one's ethnicity (celebrating diversity) can be healthy. I am referring to what would be commonly understood and unhealthy ethnocentrism which is usual to call racism. Unless I am missing something in your comment.

This back and forth would benefit from outside adjudicators as to the claims leveled against one another rather than you two just slugging it out which is just ending up in the same claims being volleyed from one side to the other again and again. — unimportant

This is often the case.

It would of course be nice to have philosophical arbiters that could "make a ruling", but that just begs the question of how these arbiters know what the truth is.

In this case, @AmadeusD goes in circles so as to tire me out, then he can have the last word. However, I don't really mind because I'm unemployed at the moment so have plenty of time. It's also my overarching philosophical project on the forum to develop methods to deal with bad faith discourse (as that is one of the major political ills we are dealing with today).

I would agree boethius that it is glaringly obvious you have answered the questions many times so find it bizarre it is claimed you haven't. — unimportant

It is indeed glaringly obvious. Resorting to just repeated denials to frustrate the other side is not unusual, but what I find bizarre in this case is that it is to defend the interests of child traffickers by arguing stealing child protection data is not harmful.

I admit honestly. Often I deliberately reject any rational knowledge and make a decision simply on the basis of what I want (without explaining the reasons) without relieving myself of responsibility for such a decision. In the end, I am just a person. I believe that it is very important to allow myself this. — Astorre

Exactly what I'm getting at. "Philosophizing" I would say is exactly this process of starting to formulate justifications for things one had no need of before, and as soon as that process starts there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Now that you've formulated this philosophical foundation for acting on whim some or most of the time, the critical question is does this philosophy withstand critical scrutiny.

Once you do one critical scrutiny pass, perhaps you rectify or develop one aspect or another as well as encounter literature for and against the position, which results in a new iteration of the philosophy and the same question of whether this new version too can withstand critical scrutiny. If it has already been augmented or adjusted on first viewing, then it certainly stands to reason that further critical scrutiny will result in more adjustments.

After many years of this what "philosophy is" may become more apparent, in that pretty much any position at all results in a never ending series of insights, counter-arguments, rebuttals and so on.

However, the exercise is only interesting if it manifests in changes to "everyday life" to both reflect "actually believing it" when a view changes as well as testing philosophical conclusions in practice to see how it goes.

As to the quotidian situation with your wife.

Assuming your ordinary habits are just (I do not say above they are unjust, only that it is the critical philosophical question to find out):

It is generally of little use to argue with someone who does not want to argue.

I very rarely argue with anyone outside some practical need in dealing with bureaucrats, as most people interpret arguing as conflict, which is not the point of philosophical analysis. Hence I argue here with people who presumably also want to argue.

and my wife has no choice but to eventually agree with my views in everyday matters (but I do not want to suppress her). — Astorre

But if argue you must, why exactly does your wife have no choice but to accept your views?

If it is only because you are more practiced at arguing, then I would suggest a practical approach of not requiring your wife to accept your views but to bring your views to people who are able to scrutinize them, such as there are many on this forum.

Most people do not engage in analysis and view things intuitively.

Arguments can have subtle flaws that people may intuit there is something wrong with but cannot articulate, therefore to press the matter they "have no choice but to agree", but of course they don't feel good about that and are not convinced if they feel there is something wrong. They feel suppressed, as you say, more than having learned something.

To articulate what one intuits requires many years of intense study, to subject those articulations to critical scrutiny requires even more learning and practice.

Exactly as I say: a duel life of earning money during the day in service to assumed and unexamined objectives, and then philosophy as a pass time activity.

The alternative view is that what is of critical philosophical importance is exactly that regular activity that is taken for granted. Not so that philosophy, however you define it, can serve that activity and make it more efficient, but rather asking the question of are those regular purposes justified to begin with.

If you're "earning a living" as you say somehow apart from philosophy, well presumably there is some sort of reason for doing it. If it's because that's "just what people do" (get educated, get a job, "live" in a normal sense for the society you are in) ... well does that constitute justification?

The reason philosophy is presented as a hobby or discipline like any other (which are defined precisely as serving a well defined objective assumed by the practitioners) is to maintain a sort of firewall between the tools of critical analysis, radically different points of view, as well as just pure madness, from affecting "normal life", for fear that critical scrutiny will lead to decisions, or the feeling that a decision should be made, which one disagrees with in the present (i.e. fear of a future self that is wiser, more learned, but unpredictable and therefore crazy).

However, there is of course no justification for maintaining such a firewall. If things can be placed under critical scrutiny, so too can the normal life that gave rise to such critical thinking capacity in the first place.

Naturally, by definition, the self before realizing such a critical capacity does not desire any scrutiny, if only due to having no familiarity with it.

Therefore, it is a very tense endeavour to really think about things including what exactly it is that you are doing.

You're presuming a sort of duel life where a person has goals that are not up for philosophical scrutiny (presumably making money) and this daily activity has no philosophical content or meaning, and then a sort of philosophy moonlighting happens in spare time, which can include, among other things, analysis of the "normal life" as essentially a separate object.

Of course, nothing prevents someone living that way, but I hope simply describing it reveals a potential line of critique.

No pictures.

Ancient Origins

The earliest forms of scissors date back about 3,000-4,000 years to ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. These primitive tools were known as spring scissors. They consisted of two bronze blades connected at the ends by a flexible strip of metal that acted as a spring, allowing the blades to automatically open after being pressed together. These scissors were used to cut fabrics, hair, and other lightweight materials. — THE INVENTION OF SCISSORS: A JOURNEY THROUGH HISTORY

The spring scissors are more flexible.

But even so, they are called scissor hands so we must expect some reasonable combination of the characteristics of scissors and hands.

It's like taking issue with potato salad because it is not made of whole potatoes.

↪boethius they can make as scissoring motion when placed next to another wrist, just like knuckles can. Any joint can. — flannel jesus

The difference being the wrists are just placed next to each other, whereas knuckles are quite clearly fastened together, though if you put giant blades attached to your arms then clearly it becomes scissor arms. I honestly don't see the problem.

How would your wrists make a scissoring motion, and if so why wouldn't such a motion become scissors when blades are fitted?

Is that obvious to you? It's not to me. Each of my knuckles is connected to one finger only, and allows a pretty wide range of motion that the blades of scissors don't have. — flannel jesus

Key word "knuckles" which are all connected to 1 finger and then 1 or 2 other knuckles connecting to more fingers thus providing articulation that can, among other things, provide a scissoring motion, which can be described further in terms of anatomy if that is required.

You must have very very different knuckles from the rest of us — flannel jesus

The basic scissor design is two blades connected, as you state in your OP, well obviously knuckles provide that connection of two blades.

Most, if not all of us here, have made the scissor motion with our hands to represent cutting at one point in our lives. Clearly putting actual blades on the fingers will result in scissor hands.

You are attempting to get us to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears using TED talk hypnosis. But I resist.

The fingers are connected together at the fulcrum that is the knuckle, thus combining hands and scissors into scissor hands.

The design is based on the first and best scissors, the spring scissors, where the two blades loop around a U that provides spring action.

Ancient Origins

The earliest forms of scissors date back about 3,000-4,000 years to ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. These primitive tools were known as spring scissors. They consisted of two bronze blades connected at the ends by a flexible strip of metal that acted as a spring, allowing the blades to automatically open after being pressed together. These scissors were used to cut fabrics, hair, and other lightweight materials. — THE INVENTION OF SCISSORS: A JOURNEY THROUGH HISTORY

And the subtext of your subtext is that being the American-European lead West the greatest evil in history we Westerners (?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) should help Russia end American-European-lead West by spinning pro-Russian propaganda, right? And that's rational, right? — neomac

Reality and facts is not "pro-Russian propaganda". If the fact is that Russia can defeat Ukraine because Russia is bigger than Ukraine, and the fact is the West leaving Ukraine to fight the Russians alone is called appeasement, and the fact is the West has committed a disturbingly large amount of genocides and is committing genocide right now as we speak (arguably more than one), those are just the facts.

In terms of absolute amount of suffering caused, definitely the West is the most evil in History, due to scale.

And definitely we Westerners should feel bad about that suffering.

We should feel bad about the suffering of the Palestinians suffering a brutal genocide with on camera rapes of prisoners, burning and blown apart children, rapes of children we know about, starvation; really the most horrifying and humiliating conditions possibly in history, due to the essentially live-broadcast nature of the documentation of the horror.

Likewise, we should definitely feel bad about having bribed the Ukrainian elite into doing our dirty work to ensure the US can sell LNG to Europe at the cost of over a million dead Ukrainians (some estimates are approaching 2 million dead).

We manipulate and prop up the Ukrainians to take an absolutely brutal beating, dangle prospects of real help sometimes (like all that "no-fly-zone" talk, if you remember that) and the hypothesis is supposed to be we should feel good about that because we morally excoriated the Russians for following the exact same policies of Imperial domination we follow (just a lot more nobly due to pretty close adherence to the laws of war and not doing things like a genocide and starving civilian populations and lacking things like raping prisoners, and even recording the rapes, bragging about the rapes and defending the rapists)?

Also, for those wondering: illegal, violation, offences, crimes, wrongdoing, are all technical legal terms and jargon to refer to different kinds of laws and non-legal actions.

"Wrongdoing" is a catch all for reproachable actions, leaving it undefined what kind of wrongdoing we are talking about: contractual breach, violation, offence, crime, being the main legal categories.

Specifically, wrongdoing is legal jargon referring to something one is saying violates the law in someway (i.e. a judge will rule in your favour) and is also immoral. Non-legal things that one does not wish to imply are also immoral, the jargon of "non-compliance" or "deficiency" would be used instead. "Serious contractual deficiencies" would be typical language to describe that you aren't happy about what's been done or delivered under a contract but are not saying it was done intentionally.

However, in terms of what the government does in terms of law enforcement by itself, a violation is not a crime but may give rise to orders to do things differently and / or a fine, whereas an offence is a crime.

For example, in Finland to stay in the context of the OP, the Companies Act ends with a small list of offences and violations. The whole act is rules that are supposed to be followed, but if would be up to a wronged party to seek redress in civil litigation or arbitration with respect to those rules, but the government does care about a few things in terms of law enforcement: such as not changing or misrepresenting auditing reports for example, especially in the context of a merger, which is an offence as you may imagine. A violation (i.e. will be ordered to fix and / or fined over) would be things like negligent paperwork of one kind or another.

So, in any legal dispute or government action, these word choices are important and refer to different categories of potential consequences.

For our purposes here, compromising someone's information is wrongdoing; if important enough information then if it is intentional it is by definition criminal invasion of privacy, if it's unintentional then it could be anywhere on the spectrum of non-liable accident, non-compliance, violation, to criminal negligence.

@Benkei's an actual lawyer who could certainly explain things better if he wanted to.

However, one important difference between board member's and regular people is that board members are held to a higher standard. Although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an oft repeated adage, it is actually totally a good excuse if you could not reasonably have known about the law; however, board members of a corporation are required by law to either have or then seek out expertise they lack in making decisions, why it is not plausible for board members in an advanced Western economy such as Finland to just completely ignore questions of data integrity and liability, as there's a super long list of violations and offences that go along with being careless with people's critical information and "oh, I didn't know" is a legal defence explicitly denied to corporate board members.

What do I suffer when you receive my personal information??? Stop fing around, and answer this question. — AmadeusD

I'll be checking in every few days to just point out that I have obviously answered this question multiple time, and you have yet to demonstrate you are not lying when you say you would suffer nothing if I had all your information.

If you would suffer nothing, if it was "nothing" to you, as you claim, then you'd just do it to show that.

If I said it was nothing to me to do something, then I'd just do it to demonstrate that fact.

You don't send me your personal information to demonstrate you suffer nothing if I have all your personal information, because you are lying to me.

You also just completely ignore the obvious fact that invasion of privacy is a crime, vis-a-vis your actual claim that it's not only nothing that I have your personal information but nothing to you if I steal if from you and also the matter at hand in that the child welfare group of corporations described in the the OP are compromising children's information integrity illegally (in violation of the GDPR).

As the reason it's illegal, and why there are now 2 investigations into these events that I know of, is because invasions of privacy, or comprising privacy due to malice, error or neglect, causes severe suffering. If it didn't, there wouldn't be laws about it, and certainly not offences and crimes.

However, if we agree on the relationship to racism, there is one caveat in that capitalism also promotes non-racism. Wokeism is a corporate philosophy, if we understand wokeism to refer to identify politics completely removed from any economic class based politics.

In order to explain this dichotomy I've had to come up with Racism Optimization Theory (ROT for short) while taking a shower, which seeks to explain the racist dialectic within capitalism.

The three pillars of capitalism as we know it today are corporatist resource extraction, consumerism and imperial domination.

In terms of economic domination of both the foreign people, from whom capitalist elites need the resources and for them to stay poor, and the domestic populations, from whom capitalist elites simply need passivity, these 3 pillars work in complete harmony. Resources are extracted from poor countries to be forced down the gullets of the ignorant masses in the West; fattening up the goose in "goose step".

When it comes to racism however, there is a symbolic tension between the ideals of liberalism that justify "market access", the uniformity sought for efficient consumerism, and the racism required for the foundational imperial power structure.

Racism Optimization Theory describes the mechanisms of how these symbolic tensions are harmonized for smooth oppressive whole.

Make a long story short, contemporary wokeism is the logical terminus of this Rasist Optimziation Theoretical. For, a transnational corporation requires inter-national cooperation within the corporate structure as well as to sell to everyone regardless of race, and so a "colour blind" corporate identity and marketing.

Wokeism provides this ideology with all "unproductive" values that came along with OG liberalism completely removed.

At the same time, the crystallization of wokeism as an oppressive corporate force (it's corporations that do "cancelling" and not any legal process or genuine public outrage; public can be as outraged as it wants, if a corporation doesn't want to use that as a pretext to cancel someone then they won't be cancelled, while a tiny number of super outraged people, regardless of what they're outraged about even making any sense, will be used a pretext to cancel anyone if that's what the very same corporation wants), causes itself the consolidation of naked racism as a potent political force. With anti-racism managed by large multi-national corporations (rather than a religious minister or something like that) and racism securely in the hands of fascists who explicitly want imperial policies, the capitalist system reaches peak efficiency with both cylinders firing at full torque and power.

↪boethius Strange, your reply didn't show up until now, or I missed it the first time. Hard to miss your posts usually. — unimportant

No worries comrade; clearly still best practice to reply to the OP to avoid this happening.

Seems yours is the only reply on a similar track that I was thinking with most taking issue at the question itself being fallacious and misguided somehow. No surprise since we are both Anarchist comrades. — unimportant

Good to see this is no longer the case, but I don't think the premise is so much denied by apparent antagonists to it, only that the opposing parties in the debate claim to have personally transcended Western beauty superficiality to arrive at a purer Western aesthetic of more than the eye can see ... that still includes slaying mad hot bitches in near infinite supply as a core value ... but also ... something more.

For example:

Or to put it another way, if you're on a dating app you'll see any number of profiles showcasing "beauty", so you can go on an almost unlimited number of dates with beautiful people. — LuckyR

Clearly takes for granted that looks are the main factor of consideration.

It's not as if @LuckyR is ignoring or turning off images to go on dates purely based on indications of character, but rather he only goes on dates with beautiful people but has become tired with getting lucky with an unlimited number of 10's and has to just wait tediously on his trek through the desert of endless 10 to find those few diamonds in the rough who have it all.

But that just begs the question of why apps are looks based in the first place. If beauty was taken for granted by everyone and what they really wanted was character, then that's what dating apps would be designed to swipe on. There wouldn't even be photos, or at least not put forward, but just a list of achievements, maybe a poem or two authored or then at least appreciated by the date-seekers, and other indications of character if that's what people in the West valued more than looks.

Moving on:

Beauty is a sign of good genetics(as if it was a mark of having good genetics). If you think you've seen a beautiful person who has proven that his/her genetics aren't good, then I would ask you, how beautiful was this person? If it's just a cute face, I wouldn't class that as beautiful. The best of the best beautiful people tend to have good immune systems, great minds and perfect bodies. — Barkon

Beauty is not even enough for @Barkon, but bodies must be perfect to indicate good genes, but again he's transcended not only the average Westerner but even @LuckyR who certainly is confusing cuteness with perfection to the detriment of his genetic legacy. Another gullible fool in the casino of life. If you're not at the table with a perfect 10 on your arm who's also a brilliant physicist, pulitzer prize winner and composer who never gets ill: you're the sucker.

Again, beauty is yesterday's news, and you better be bringing a great mind and never mention any illness whatsoever if you want your perfect body to even have a chance of copulating with @Barkon's.

.... I'm just going to go ahead and QED on the West's particular obsession with appearances deriving from hundreds of years of Imperial skin-colour based domination ideology and amplified by capitalism that taps into those mental structures if it sells product (which it does).

Goes without saying that Übermensch wear only the superiorist of denim threads as we've been recently reminded.

In case the subtexts of the above argument is not clear, the point is not to recognize we need to finally stop appeasing Putin and start WWIII, but rather the point is the reality is simply that the propaganda framing that Putin is Hitler and that sending arms to Ukraine is Churchillian valour (the propaganda version of Churchill that ignores his own Hitlarian racist genocidal mania) is stupid and a vast majority of people in the West know that it's stupid and just something that we say but don't actually believe; for, if we did actually believe Putin was morally equivalent to Hitler and Russian's to Nazis, then the case for direct war would be incredibly strong and it would be clear to everyone that anything short of direct warfare would be appeasement.

But even that far more realistic view is still based in the proparanda framing that the West would care even if Putin was Hitler and actually was committing a genocide in Ukraine, for we have in parallel a genocide in Palestine and the support for the genocide far outweighs opposition from our political class, and the idea of putting a stop to it through the use of force is not even a possibility of consideration.

Which itself is still a propaganda framing that fighting WWII was about stopping Hitler and his genocide, and somehow that Western ethos has changed, rather than allied participation in WWII being about pursuing Western imperial interests that include plenty of genocide both before and after WWII and still today!

Point is, if you want to go all the way to the bottom of the West's propaganda "Inception" basement (which makes sense if you've seen the movie Inception), then those are some of the levels along the way.

For our purposes here, the reality is that the Western policy is:

1. Bribing the Ukrainian elites (a regime ruling one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and the largest black market arms dealer even before the war started) with flooding in cash and arms.

2. Suppressing any democratic sentiment (which kept on voting for peace with Russia and against further escalation of tensions) through the use of literal Nazi paramilitary organizations goose stepping hand in hand with Ukrainian intelligence.

3. Using steps 1 and 2 to ensure Ukraine fighting beyond any plausible rational military plan in order to:

a. Lock-in Europe into US liquified natural gas imports for mad profits.
b. Lock-in Europe into massive purchases of US arms.
c. Lock-in Europe into humiliated vassal status for the foreseeable future.
d. Uncouple Europe from Russia economically generally speaking, but setting up US-Russian economic collaboration down the line.
e. Defeat the Euro as a competitor to the USD.
f. Clarify the zones of influence in the emerging multi-polar world, with the remaining great powers being Russia and China, with the EU "off the table" and little chance of a general peace in which the great powers become less relevant and are forced to deal with domestic issues.
g. Most importantly of all, defeat European welfare state policies and practice as a model of economic development globally by simply fucking up Europe generally speaking.

Why would European leaders go along with this? Because they are literally in a satanic cult controlled by the financial powers that are in a position to assert said financial power to propel whoever they select to the bureaucratic positions of relevance (and satanic extortionary leverage being the best leverage but more importantly the satanic belief system encouraging sacrificing the interests of regular people and your whole country for whatever madness is popular in satanic circles these days); and if not a satanist literally murdering children on video, then at least someone totally incompetent and clueless and 100% a coward if ever they did get a clue.

↪jorndoe Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov is saying that Zelenskyy is making any progress towards peace impossible. I'll fill in the blanks: 'The Ukrainians keep insisting that they own their own country. They won't agree that they should surrender to us and that Zelenskyy should resign. Therefore, we have no choice but to keep fighting.' — Wayfarer

Perhaps consider the critical thinking perspective, which you are clearly capable of on other subjects.

The first critical question is "why is it ok when the US does it".

The US uses its military power to coerce and if that doesn't work invade to implement their "national interests" all the time. As we speak the US has committed (either sent or sending) troops to violate both Mexican and Venezualan sovereignty, and recently threatened to take the Panama canal and all of Greenland, within the context of waging overt and covert wars all over the world.

Now, if you deplore US imperialism as much as Russian, then ok, great, we're on the same page.

If you take the next step of having a lucid view of things, the proximate cause of the war in Ukraine is US imperialism threatening Russian imperialism, soliciting a predictable response. If you want to argue the ultimate cause is Russian imperialism that was always going to try to take what it wants in Ukraine, then I'm not entirely convinced (the pre-2014 status quo could have perhaps continued for a long time; as Russia also benefited from the status quo in having a large Russian speaking voting block in Ukraine which served the purpose of maintaining the status quo) but I have zero problem accepting such a premise for the sake of argument.

For, when we look at this obvious clear reality we have two imperial powers and a smaller country in between that became the object of inter-imperial struggle.

In de-contextualized absolute terms the US is more powerful than Russia (population, economics, technology, satellites, military alliances and bases around the world, etc. with perhaps a few areas where Russia leads, like not having 37 trillion dollars of national debt), so on this basis it was argued that Ukraine can switch Imperial sides and this is a safe and wise move.

That is the fundamental premise of the whole war and events leading up to the war.

However, when context is taken into account, Ukraine is right on Russia's border and so Russia is the dominant Imperial power. As Obama (who had access to the raw in intel) informed us, whatever the US does in Ukraine can be overmatched 4 times by the Russians.

The idea that "Ukrainian sovereignty" is a a justification for fighting to a loss is simply pure propaganda.

In my military training (NATO military training) one of the bedrock moral principles we were instructed to follow, due to being common sense and the supreme law of the land by treaty (this is Canada where treaties like the Geneva conventions matter), is that the use of military force must be in service of an achievable military outcome; that it was not honourable to fight to the death for no purpose, and doing so not only caused more immediate damage (primarily to civilians who we're supposed to be fighting to protect) but also harmed the long term prospects for peace by causing further unnecessary animosity; for, not only does more harm cause more bad blood but it is easier to understand and forgive military action taken to achieve a rational military purpose than violence for the sake of violence.

While NATO encourages Ukraine to fight to the death, actual NATO training (obviously omitted from what was provided to Ukrainians) includes an entire multi-millenial war fighting philosophy in which the goal is to limit damage to civilians, international relations, and fight towards a lasting peace rather than inflicting vindictive harm on one's enemies.

It is the bedrock ethos of the professional Western soldier.

History demonstrates again and again that when the use of lethal force is used in a plausibly rational and justified manner, seeking to minimize harm to achieve reasonable military objectives, that healing the wounds of war is far easier.

War is by definition the breakdown of diplomatic dialogue in which differences can no longer be resolved by talking and therefore the facts on the ground will be determined by force.

How that force is used has an immense impact on the prospects of rebuilding a diplomatic process to avoid further warfare in the future. The reality is that rarely are two sides equally matched and fight to a standstill and then re-establish the status quo anti after a purposeless war that changed nothing and caused only harm. The reality is generally one side is stronger or then more committed and achieves military objectives while the other side loses, of course at great cost to both sides.

This is the actual issue. Ukraine cannot achieve further rational military objectives, and could not remotely plausibly achieve any further militarily achievable objectives since 2023.

And this is not just me saying this; General Milley expressed this basic war fighting philosophy regularly; for example:

“There may be a political solution where politically the Russians withdraw,” Milley said at a press conference Wednesday. “You want to negotiate at a time when you’re at your strength, and your opponent is at weakness. And it’s possible, maybe, that there’ll be a political solution. All I’m saying is there’s a possibility for it.” — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

“When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” Milley said at the time. — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

Instead of following in any remote sense this war fighting ethic carefully crafted over literally thousands of years so that the disaster that is war -- generally caused by delirious political leadership decisions on one or both sides -- serves a lasting peace to the extent that can be reasonably achieved in the brutal chaos of war and inter-state competition for raw power.

That is the issue, and if we take any similar situation where the US violates the sovereignty of smaller states for the political ambitions of its leadership, no one would be recommending that Mexico or Panama or Denmark fight the US to the death for no achievable military objective.

As a smaller state faced with imperial aggression, there's only 2 reasonable moves:

1. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then complete capitulation.

2. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then limited war fighting to return to negotiation and appeasement (demonstrate there is a cost to the use of force and it won't be "so easy"), and then if that fails complete capitulation.

Now, the rebuke to common sense strategy from a small-state point of view is that appeasement of Hitler didn't work and WWII happened anyways.

But that's not the same. That is an issue in which other great powers (and far greater powers at the time the appeasement strategy began; by definition starting with appeasing Hitler in remilitarizing in violation to Treaty of Versailles) that can credibly enforce their will on Germany and are deciding between appeasement and war.

To make an accurate analogy, we must recast appeasement in the scenario of the Sudetenland crisis as the situation being no one is about to go to war with Germany over Sudetenland but will send arms to Czechoslovakia so that they can fight the Nazi's alone.

Literally zero historians have taken the position in this debate that of course Czechoslovakian sovereignty is a categorical imperative for Czechoslovakian to fight for the death over and for the allies to send thoughts and prayers and arms (in a drip feed manner that wouldn't really threaten the the German's ability to take and hold the Sudetenland).

Had the allies made it clear they aren't about to fight the Germans over Sudetenland but they encourage the Czechoslovakians to do so, THAT IS CALLED APPEASEMENT! just with the extra setp of a lot of Czechoslovakians dying.

And that is the NATO policy vis-a-vis Russia since 2022: appeasement, just with the extra step of a lot of Ukrainians dying.

Would any historian make the case in such a scenario where the Allies make clear they won't fight the germans but smaller states should, with some arms (but shhh, even then not too many) ... would not be appeasement to Hitler as long as they talked tough?

Because that is the Western hypothesis: that others should fight the Russians for our moral beliefs, and that is not appeasement because we talk really, really, really tough ... except when it turns out indefinite conflict with the Russians isn't politically practical because the Ukrainians will lose and also Russia has stuff we want, then it's predictably time to cut loose the Ukrainians and recast ourselves as peace makers the whole time.

This is the issue: we appease the Russians, handle the war with kitten gloves to make sure we don't piss off the Russians too much (so avoid nuclear escalation but also to avoid too much bad blood that we can't access Russian resources when the time comes for that to be profitable and not putting at risk LNG exports to Europe, or get whatever else from Russia that has become expedient), and while we do that we vicariously live Churchillian non-appeasement through Ukrainians in a war they can't win and is horrendously damaging to them.

But would that be the feeling if we just propped up the Czechoslovakian's to be killed in large numbers and Hitler still get what he wanted? Would Western historians be like "fuck yeah, we really showed him" in a scenario that plays out like that without the US, France and UK ever declaring war on Germany?

Because that's what we're doing today but packaging it as brave.

What you say is part of it, but I'd posit the foundational well-spring of beauty obsession in the West is imperialist race supremacy.

Especially before genetics even existed, the only basis on which to conclude Westerners are superior is superficial attributes. If you grow up believing you're better than other people's because you're from a more perfected race then it's a natural corollary that looks would further differentiate the superior to the inferior within the superior race.

Point is the whole framework of racial superiority is independent of actions, character and morals, you just walk around believing you're of higher value than various lower forms of humanity (or higher forms of our cousin primates, depending on the race theory). If you're conditioned to feel this way to understand your general value position within society you're going to have the same thoughts comparing yourself with anyone, including other "civilized" peoples.

And in general, the more I learn about the nuances of politics, history and sociology, the more, not less, things seem reducible to racism.

Why is the genocide happening right now: racism.

Why do we have a war on drugs that fuels organized crime and corrupts our institutions: racism.

Why do we not ensure everyone in our own societies has basic needs despite having the wealth and technology: racism.

Why do we not even consider providing everyone on the planet with basic needs, or have a reasonable go at it: racism.

Why is capitalist polite society unbothered by the failure of its promises: racism.

Why is Western culture obsessed with superficial beauty: racism.

Because sure, social problems are complex ... but also studied exhaustively and we know can be solved. Why not implement those solutions? Racism.

↪boethius Please don't lie. What I said was this — AmadeusD

I've literally cited you saying exactly:

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

The immediately preceding comment to yours has me citing you:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it.
— AmadeusD — boethius

And yet you accuse me of not citing your words and misrepresenting your position ... which is not even the argument you're making in going on to say:

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention. — AmadeusD

Which clearly recognizes I haven't misrepresented your position, you just claim my explaining (multiple times) that invasion of privacy is illegal hasn't answered your question. And why is it illegal? Because it causes suffering.

Again, for you personally maybe you are radically transparent and really wouldn't suffer by demonstrating it is "nothing" to you that I have your information by simply sending it to me. Now, while that would satisfy me it really is nothing to you personally, invasion of privacy would remain illegal due to the very act of invading someone's privacy causing suffering of a feeling of violation, lack of safety, and worry of further harms enabled by the invasion of privacy (once they find out about it of course; privacy invaders, cluster B folks, would of course say that the goal is the subject of their enquiry never finds out about it and therefore it is a victimless crime and they've done nothing wrong and shouldn't be held accountable even if their victim does find out, because it's someone else's fault that the victim found out and therefore that person caused the suffering).

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth time you've made your stylish exit.

And once more, every accusation is a confession.

↪boethius Shouldn't you be doing something about the Child Trafficking Operation We Should All Do Something About? — RogueAI

I am. There are two ongoing investigations (that I know of): one by the ministry of health and another by a corporation involved. I finished compiling all the private information I have about it yesterday.

Why are you wasting time quislinging for Russia? — RogueAI

I (and many others; I'm by no means alone in saying so) predict 3 years ago that Ukraine will go the way of our Afghani "friends" and be propped up the time they are useful and then cut loose as soon as they aren't.

There's never any counter argument presented to this prediction, just endless moralizing about how bad Putin is and how great Zelensky is.

The prediction comes true as even the pro-Zelenkiytes here seem to agree, and yet there is zero self reflection on what this cheerleading for Zelensky has accomplished these 3 years.

And even now, to point out facts (such as the pattern the US has of abandoning their "friends" once no longer of use, or that Russia is a lot bigger than Ukraine in size and population, and the policy is clearly to drip feed weapons to Ukraine precisely so there is nothing "serious" that threatens the Russians and so on) is somehow even now pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

I'm the only one here that advocated for sending troops into Ukraine, as that would very likely force a peace settlement and if done in a sensible way with sensible diplomatic options on the table would be less likely, not more likely, to escalate to nuclear weapons use. The end result would have been super likely a new security architecture to ensure peace going forward (what Russia wanted and so even entertaining the idea was "Putinistic") and far, far less Ukrainian dead and damage to Ukraine as a nation.

Of course I also explained that's not an option even being considered by Western politicians and talking heads, because helping Ukraine isn't the goal! They straight forwardly inform us the goal is to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. That's not what "friends" do, much less allies.

This whole 1 million Ukrainian dead saga is a lesson in actions speak louder than words. Doesn't matter what the West says, if they aren't going to send their own troops to a fight then it's because the issue doesn't matter that much to them; and both politicians and the vast majority of regular people in the West would all say without hesitation since the war began that of course none of their own soldiers should be sent to Ukraine. The conclusion therefore should be that clearly this issue of Ukrainian sovereignty simply doesn't matter much to the West and they shouldn't be relied on to "do whatever it takes" and deliver on other empty promises.

Lol.

Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him. — ssu

Well then why not just give Ukraine a bunch of nukes to end the war 3 years ago?

Why all this "no one wants world war 3 man" from the Biden administration to explain not sending in armour, then some armour nut not tanks, then not sending missiles, then missiles beyond a certain range, and not sending fighter jets, and limiting what can be struck and so on.

What exactly is your argument? That Putin's nuclear ramblings have paid off in terms of deterring the West from the kinds of military support that may end up in a loss? I.e. that what I explain is exactly what you're explaining, but somehow my version of the exact same thing is laughable?

Of are you saying that Putin manage to fool Biden and most if not all of the Biden administration, and even boethius of the philosophy forum, but he hasn't fooled you? You remain unfooled and would have not hesitated to send Ukraine whatever it wants because Putin's bluffing with his nuke talk?

And what ramblings? Putin rarely talks about nuclear weapons.

The deterrent effect here is having the nuclear weapons, not so much speaking about them.

And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator. — ssu

Ok, sure, but then why didn't saint Biden end the war by giving Ukraine nuclear weapons or then all the good conventional stuff from day 1?

What's the sense of your argument? The current state of the war in Ukraine was determined during the Biden administration. Ukraine and its "friends" have been openly talking about their man power problem and man power disadvantage for a while now, which is not solved by more weapons even if the US had them in abundance (which they simply do not seem to have).

The weapons production problem, again, is the result of the Biden administration who could have executed a crash program of shells, and drones and other arms production to ensure Ukraine was flush with weapons while it still had a solid and substantial military core of soldiers.

A production program which, had it been executed at the start of the way, would have probably actually resulted in an actual stalemate with the Russians, but instead Ukraine has weathers under a shell disadvantage of 7-10 to 1 (in addition to being disadvantaged in every other weapons system, such as glide bombs, drones, armour and so on).

Western talking heads prattle on about Russia's arms production advantage, all while boasting of the West's economic might dwarfing Russia in GDP (when it's important to make the point that Russia is a backwrter and not a "player"), but don't put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that it's a Western policy choice to not produce enough arms for Ukraine to significantly hamper the Russians.

The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. — ssu

Thank you, we're in agreement.

The problem with the Western policy is that it is designed intentionally to not pose a serious threat to the Russians. It is duplicitous manipulation essentially optimized to harm Ukraine as much as possible to achieve other ends.

That is my issue with the Western policy since the start of the war, since the declaration that armour won't be sent to Ukraine, then sending a bit, then a bit more, and then keeping up the drip feed of weapons just enough for Ukraine to get decimated in it's war fighting capacity and demographics.

The reason the West was never serious (long before Trump) about supporting Ukraine is because had they done so, applied the military leverage at their disposal, that would have forced a resolution, as everyone would see Russia is being pushed to nuclear weapons use and then too many people act out of self preservation for such madness to continue.

But the goal was never to resolve this war in a way to help Ukraine under any plausible definition of the word help.

To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. — ssu

It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons.

This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do. — ssu

A game played to terrifyingly close to full strategic nuclear exchange (with far more nuclear weapons than exist now).

And again, post-Soviet Ukraine is not and has never been an ally of the US or NATO or any country in NATO.

The error in reasoning that has occurred is expecting a non-ally to do ally type of things.

For if not an ally what is Ukraine? A useful tool by definition.

Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done. — ssu

It really depends on how the money is spent and also the broader impact on the economy.

None of the pro-NATO people here are concerned about how much money is spent by the West year on year and that somehow critical weapons systems run out and can't be replaced at even a small fraction of what the Russians can produce?

The betrayal begins. — Wayfarer

What betrayal? Ukraine was never an ally of the US or NATO.

FYI, here's how some Russians took the Trump-Putin meeting:

Had a successful summit in Alaska...
If you read "between the lines":
1) Ukrainians and Europeans need to screw themselves now, if they have enough money and will, and the United States is no longer their helper
2) The bosses obviously coordinated the road map of events for the convergence of the two countries
3) among other things, the United States will reduce its armed presence in Europe
4) the key issues of the convergence will be large joint economic projects, perhaps the creation of a joint infrastructure fund of direct investment for this purpose, and on the Russian side the contribution will be made by frozen assets (interesting what Europeans can do about it )
5) Since Trump is not "out of control", Russia will help slowing down Israel's ambitions
Next meeting in Beijing in two weeks with a little
— Michael Getman · Aug 16, 2025
Александр Рудько and how do you imagine the "destruction of the United States"?
— Ola Ivanova · Aug 17, 2025
Оля Иванова Civil war, the overthrow of the elites and 50 independent states as a result
— Alexander Rudko · Aug 17, 2025

Not much new I guess...

Trump could trigger a financial crisis in Russia — if he wants to — but has backed off from his threat of ‘very severe consequences’
— Jason Ma · Fortune · Aug 16, 2025
Trump to back ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of peace deal
— Edward Helmore, Pjotr Sauer · Guardian · Aug 16, 2025 — jorndoe

From what I understand, micro blogging social media without making a points is now against the forum rules.

It's just weak sauce to cite other people without even making it clear if you agree, if so 100% or then 99% or whatever. The people you micro-blog aren't here to debate.

For Zelensky, the status quo is better than that kind of deal. — RogueAI

If the status quo is Ukraine cannot sustain the war of attrition then Ukraine will continue not only lose people and material but at an increasingly disproportionate rate to Russian losses, as well as continue to lose more territory and face even higher demands from Russia later to compensate the further fighting.

So, the status quo is not better for Zelensky if there is no pathway to victory or even a stalemate; the status quo simply kicks the can down the road making the situation even worse for both Zelensky and the vast majority of Ukrainians.

I have no doubt he will sell out Ukraine to placate Putin. — Wayfarer

As was predicted since the beginning of the war by parties here and many other places of sober analysis.

This was the inevitable end result ever since Russia weathered the economic sanctions (which was always extremely likely, as sanctions have never in themselves caused states to collapse in addition to Russia preparing for this very war for 8 years, if not longer, and also being backed by China who can easily substitute anything the West provided; perhaps not as efficiently in all areas but having a pump that's 39% efficient rather than 41% efficient isn't going to collapse the entire economy).

What's remarkable is that there is zero introspection all these years later on part of the people that cheerleaded Ukraine continuing to fight, for Zelensky to rebuke negotiations in every possible way (that this made him strong and intelligent), and having no plan other than to repeat that Russians should go home, and when someone points out those aren't responsible actions and just get large numbers of Ukrainians killed for no militarily achievable objective, just retort some version of "But PUTIN!"

Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already. — Wayfarer

As has been explained for many pages, international relations is not a game of brownie points.

You either have the leverage or you don't.

Russia has far more leverage not just militarily over Ukraine but also in the international system, and so (as I and many other predicted) once the West, in particular the US, has squeezed all the value out of Ukraine (from the elite perspective of wanting a new cold war to dramatically increase arms spending) it's going to want to throw Ukraine under the bus and cut a deal with Russia. Russia simply has significant leverage that the West, in particular the US, can't simply ignore indefinitely.

Now if the situation that Russia has the leverage to get what it wants (i.e. Russian elites) in this situation at the expense of Ukraine is lamented and equally lamented that US also uses it's leverage to get what it wants at the expense of plenty of people, then definitely I agree the whole nation state system is lamentable.

However, for those that cheerlead US imperial actions as "rational self interest" and "benevolent hegemony" and even explain how using Ukraine to damage the Russians was a smart US imperial move and so on, it is really difficult to stomach all these "dastardly Putin!" and fist shaking in the air type of comments, is simply incredibly hollow.

On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him! — ssu

Ukraine is losing, Trump likes winners.

But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine (they were always clear about that: No WWIII), and so the policy was to simply prop Ukraine up the time that was useful to do (mostly to lock-in a new cold war and the EU buying US natural gas, also buy up all the assets on the Ukrainian side), and once Ukraine starts to lose to cut them loose.

The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". People who have no problem with the idea that's simply not possible, as the Biden administration explained many times "for reasons", have been cheering on the exact scenario that is playing out.

The Biden administration laid it out many times: no armour, no escalation, no WWIII, no boots on the ground, no missiles, no planes, no strikes in Russia ... i.e. no pissing off the Russians too much, and what would piss them off too much is losing. The policies that did change is always after Ukraine capacity was destroyed to an extent that changing the police, such as sending the missiles, would not place the Russians at greater risk of losing (would annoy them, for sure, but not the extent of losing).

What's the end point of such a police? Ukraine losing a war of attrition "calibrated" to lose (to use the RAND terminology), and once that becomes clear blame everything on Ukrainians: they wanted to fight and we didn't force them, and they just didn't want it bad enough and those clever Russians did, and we've even been paying for everything so they should be grateful, and so on.

Prediction made by me and others years ago.

The only counter-point to the prediction that Ukrainian "friends" won't fare any better than Afghani "friends" was that Ukraine and the US were more culturally similar (aka. white) and so the US wouldn't possibly leave Ukraine hanging like they left the Afghanis (when their brown, let them down, was the attitude that explained why what happened to Afghanistan was not a cause for concern).

Also because it's also annoying, an ad hominem requires both insulting someone's character, in one way or another, as well as using that to deflect from the substance of the issue.

If you deal with substance and also disrespect your interlocutor, that's not an ad hominem but rather simply answering the contentions and making it clear you don't respect the person as well: it's just two factual claims.

What you do is ad hominem:

↪boethius You could answer the question, please good sir, instead of prevaricating.

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Instead of dealing with the substance of are you going to send me all your personal data to demonstrate it really is "nothing" to you, you accuse me of bad faith.

You attack my intentions, accuse me of prevaricating and so avoiding the substance of the issue, to avoid yourself dealing with the substance which is: obviously you're not going to send me all your personal information as obviously doing so would cause you psychological suffering (to one degree or another) in addition to putting you in danger of further harms (and so also the psychological suffering of needing to worry about that).

That is ad hominem.

Which then you simply double down on:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

And then keep going, all while adding that you are existing the conversation due to my base character.

You're the one making the incredibly bold claim that it would be "nothing" to you not only that I had all your information but I stole it, of which the natural reply to such a bold claim is to ask for a demonstration.

If I suddenly made the bold claim that I could talk to anyone in the world telepathically, I'm pretty sure you and pretty much everyone here would immediately respond "well do it then! talk to us!", as that's the common sense response to such a bold claim.

You accuse me of what you're doing.

Every accusation is a confession with you types.

However, you're not alone in your devotion to the ad hominem cause, since while we're at it:

↪boethius Given your bend-over-backwards defense of Russia, it's hard to take your child welfare concerns seriously. — RogueAI

Is also an ad hominem of attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the substance of the GDPR breaches and their relation to child trafficking. And what sort of argument is this?

That even if we assume the GDPR breaches described in the OP are real and serious, if I am not pro-Ukraine enough (by which we mean pro-Zelensky apart from the welfare of actual Ukrainians, naturally) then we just have to let these Finnish compromising of child welfare systems slide and accept children may have and may continue to be trafficked in relation to the GDPR breach described?

This whole conversation is profoundly disturbing.

↪boethius You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself. — AmadeusD

Who's not worth discussing with is someone who is bad faith: gaslighting, deflecting, wasting time, and so on, and the only appropriate response is to call out such bad faith and make clear it is not respectable.

You ask:

What suffering? — AmadeusD

Skipping over the part where I already explained that, but that's fine as I could just quote myself if I didn't want to write it again.

I then answer the question again, responding directly to your question:

Invasion of privacy in itself causes suffering under Western jurisprudence and I would also argue just as a fact regardless of what our legal system says about it.

Which is why invasion of privacy is a crime. Of course, the suffering is once the victim knows about it. — boethius

You then claim I am wrong:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

If you're claim was good faith (i.e. something you at least believed to be true) then you'd have no problem demonstrating exactly what you claim; that it would be nothing to you, cause zero suffering, if I had all your personal information ... ok so hand it over. That wouldn't resolve the issue of whether it is illegal or not to compromise people's data, but it would at least demonstrate you do at least believe it is not harmful to anyone including yourself.

Ok, then send me your ID and complete medical information if it's nothing to you that I have it. — boethius

Up until now, you've asked me your question, rejected my answer and provided your own.

We're debating, fine, great.

However, to keep in good faith, you must either demonstrate your claim that my having your information is nothing to you, or then retract your claim and recognize it's clearly not nothing to you.

Instead, you claim I haven't answered your question (which I've clearly done multiple times), then keep claiming I haven't answered your question.

As I explain above, if it was actually nothing to you then you wouldn't need me to answer your questions first, but even if that was someone a reasonable condition to make on something that is nothing to you, I clearly answered your question both before and after ... and yet you still do not send me all your personal data and also don't retract your claim.

The reason it's important to respond to bad faith with disrespect is that it is the only way to the truth of the matter, that you are simply lying about what is and is not nothing to you, then pretending not to understand your own position and adding conditions (which are something) to it being nothing to you, and conditions which are not sufficient, as you still don't send me your data even after that condition is met.

It's also important to demonstrate that bad faith tactics are not "clever" but sub-optimal methods of discourse.

Also, pretending now you were simply asking a question, rather than claiming to know the law and will teach me is further annoying bad faith.

You make some bold claims:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Which are not true, but if you happened to believe they were actually true and my having your data was nothing to you (which, fine, maybe you personally don't mind) you would not hesitate to demonstrate that by sending me your data.

But you don't, because it is something to you and you recognize that something is that you would suffer if I had all your personal data, therefore you avoid that happening.

Why lie about it, unclear. Why keep going on about my not answering your questions, and ad homonyms, and so on, also unclear.

What is clear is that you are clearly lying when you state it is nothing to you if I had all your personal data.

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting. — AmadeusD

What's insulting is lying.

Obviously my having your personal data is not "nothing" to you, otherwise you would do it.

You lie about it (for honestly difficult to discern reasons) and insult me and everyone here, excepting those who also think it's fine to compromise children's private data.

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha. — AmadeusD

This was already answered.

Is there any actual evidence that any children have suffered because of what you explained?
— Sir2u

First of all, compromising people's data is itself harmful, which then, in itself, causes the suffering of needing to worry about how one's data could be used for ill, once one is made aware of the data breach (as required under the GDPR). If you knew your ID and medical history was stolen that would cause suffering even if the data theft is never exploited to commit further crimes against you. — boethius

Then I answer the same question several more times.

There is zero sneaking about.

As for your claim that it is nothing to you if I have your personal information, if you were not lying about it then you would just send it to me.

If it was nothing to you, you'd have no hesitation to do it. You would need nothing answered at all, you would simply demonstrate that it is nothing to you by doing it.

And lying for what? To defend an entire group of child welfare corporations sending EU child information outside the EU and into the possession of some anonymous individual in the US?

You insult yourself by your own words and actions, my pointing it out is simply truth and accuracy.

↪boethius I see you continue to refuse to answer the simple question posed. OK then. That is a shame. — AmadeusD

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to.

Compromising someone's personal data is a violation of their right to privacy and causes suffering in Western jurisprudence; the reason it is illegal to drill a hole through the wall of the women's locker room and spy on them, which you obviously know is illegal and yet does not meet your condition of "something more" in terms of causing some physical harm or damaging property (of the women being spied on; drilling a random hole a separate matter).

It's illegal because it causes suffering to invade people's privacy.

Personal data, in particular medical data and so on, is also private and compromising someone's privacy causes the same kind of suffering as in the example above.

Why it's illegal to hack into someone's email even if you "don't do anything with it". Of course, compromising people's privacy enables further harms, but the compromising of the privacy is also harmful in itself (and why it's illegal).

I've explained that multiple times, when this erroneous idea was first brought up and then multiple times after that.

What have i suffered? This requires an actual answer, not continuous prevarication. My claim is it is nothing. I cannot prove a negative. You must convince me that you receiving information out of my personal email account results, prima facie, in my suffering. — AmadeusD

Again, if you're talking about yourself, maybe you suffer nothing because you don't care about your own privacy. However, to spy on you and invade your privacy (your private physical space or hack into your data) is still illegal and you can press charges whether you've actually suffered from it or not. The reason it is illegal despite you claiming not to suffer, or then claiming not to understand how you've suffered, if because nearly everyone else suffers when their privacy is invaded.

It's honestly concerning that you seem to not understand that people value their privacy and if it is compromised by accident, negligence or intentionally they suffer from that. The suffering can be quite intense as they may develop a long lasting trauma response to such events.

A: You receive some clandestine information about me.
B: Nothing else has happened, as I gave this scenario and I am telling you this.
C: Where's the suffering ?? — AmadeusD

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy.

You do not have an answer it seems. Have a go! Your answer is restricted to responding to this scenario. If you move beyond this scenario, you are not answering the question/challenge. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth or sixth time I've answered why invasion of privacy (in digital form or another) causes most people suffering and that suffering is why it is illegal.

And you obviously understand that you'd suffer if I had all your personal data even if I did nothing with it, just knowing that I know private things about you that I shouldn't know would cause you some suffering as well as the suffering of needing to worry about what I may do with the information that may cause you further harm.

Because you understand that, it's obviously not "nothing" for me to have your personal information or then you'd just send it to me if it really was nothing to you as you say.

It's nothing to me to write down right here "fabricateous" and so I do so without hesitation.

fabricateous

I did it again, because it really is nothing to me to write down this word and I can demonstrate that easily and without hesitation.

The meaning of saying something is "nothing" for you to do means exactly that, it's nothing to you, there's no hesitation to do it.

For example, if I'm at a bar and someone asks if they can sit beside me, and I say "it's nothing to me if you sit there" then the implication is that they need not hesitate to sit there. If they proceed with their sitting plan and I interrupt them to say "woe, woe, woe, what are you doing, you can't sit there until you answer my questions ... that you haven't answered!!" then obviously it's not nothing to me that they sit there, but has conditions that are more than nothing.

The present situation is even worse, as not only do you demand I satisfy conditions for you to demonstrate it's "nothing" to you that I have all your personal information, but I satisfy your demands and still you don't demonstrate it's nothing to you by doing it.

Imagine after accusing this fellow bar goer of not answering my questions (let's say from a previous conversation) and of obviously he can't sit beside me at the bar until those questions are answered, all while claiming it's nothing to me if he sits there, and then the man does answer my questions and I still refuse to allow him to sit beside me.

Obviously I don't permit him to sit because I have issue with it, and it's not nothing to me. If it was nothing I'd make no conditions, answering questions or any other, as it's nothing to me, conditions would be something. My saying it's nothing to me and then obstructing the thing I say is nothing to me from happening, is called a bluff. It's obviously something to me but I don't want to admit it so resort to gaslighting and bullshit to avoid the thing in question from happening.

You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

You clearly state:

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Stating it is nothing for one to possess another's personal information, without something more.

If it's nothing, then you'd not hesitate to do so. It's nothing, therefore there's no obstacle, you should easily be able demonstrate something is nothing to you by simply doing it.

Obviously it isn't nothing to you, and is why you don't do it, because you're a liar.

As for your question, I had already answered it and it's just tedious to answer it again, even more tedious to answer to someone pretending to know something about the law, so incredibly ignorant as to state:

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Something more is not required in terms of compromising someone's privacy (personal data in this case), as I've already stated:

Compromising someone's data, violating the law that is the GDPR and a bunch of other laws, is by definition harmful and causes suffering (one must worry how one's data maybe abused). — boethius

The reason invasion of privacy is a crime is because it causes suffering even if there is no "physical harm". If I secretly watch you undress while you believe you are in a private space and not being watched, that is a crime even though I haven't done "something more" to cause you physical pain or cause you to lose property.

Why is invasion of privacy a crime? Because there is a feeling of violation when your personal space is not respected.

And maybe reflect on your own critical thinking skills as you obviously know invasion of privacy is a crime and yet there is 'nothing more'; the suffering is a purely psychological response to having been watched when you thought you had privacy. If I watched you undress without your knowledge while you expected privacy, but that happens to turn you on then you have actually benefited and not suffered, but it being "nothing to you" and actually a benefit is completely irrelevant to it still being illegal. Most people suffer from it and that is the reason it is a crime.

In the case of data, it is also an invasion of privacy; people have a reasonable expectation that their medical information, and ID, and court documents and so on, are kept private. There is the same feeling of violation if someone gains access to them who shouldn't.

In addition to the basic privacy violation in the case of child protection data there is the further suffering of all involved (children and guardians) of needing to worry about whether the data being compromised can be used for further harms (as I already explained).

The logic that invading someone's privacy is not harmful because "nothing's been done with it yet" is definitely the logic of a sociopath, and the reason cluster-B folks tend not to respect boundaries as they don't see the harm in it. FYI.

Lying is also a cluster-B personality trait.

I'm not a doctor, but I can definitely diagnose you with stupid.

↪boethius In the scenario I gave you, what suffering have I endured? — AmadeusD

I'm not you. You say it's nothing to you that I have all your personal information.

Do it then.

That would demonstrate your point, which may indeed be true for you, that you really don't mind.

If you don't demonstrate it though, match your words with your actions, then you're lying to me, and it's important to make that clear.

It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

If it's nothing, then there should be no hesitation to demonstrate it's nothing.

For example, it's nothing to me to write the word "fabricateous", and I can demonstrate it is nothing to me right now by doing so:

fabricateous

So there you have it, my position matched by my deeds.

If it's nothing to you to send me all your personal data, then do so to demonstrate it is indeed nothing to you.