Every single one on this list and the previous one has implicated NATO expansion as the main provocation for war in Ukraine. — Isaac

Quote them, then, if you think it can help your argument. Name dropping ain't enough, for your words are worth little.

I don't think this was the issue to begin with. — Benkei

It was the issue I raised, in response to constant complaints about my so-called disgusting 'war cheerleading'. I wanted to know what was worse: 'cheerleading' people who defend themselves, or murdering people.

For some, this appears to be a difficult question. But it's important to reach moral clarity and I agree we are getting there, at long last.

what errors were you referring to and what were their consequences? — Isaac

Start a thread, or even better, read this one. It's all been described. None of it implies a provocation from Washington.

Your explanation relies on an assumption that the conversation ought to have stopped — Isaac

You misunderstood me again: the discussion of NATO's sins must in fact continue forever, as a way to deflect attention from the war crimes on the ground.

The US did a bad thing creating the circumstances for, and provoking this war.

Putin did a bad thing responding to that provocation so violently and with such callousness.

We all agree on both. — Isaac

There was no provocation that I can see. So no, i don't agree. It's all on Putin.

The vast majority of this thread has been taken up with attempts to paint such criticism as apologetics for Putin. — Isaac

The vast majority of your posts have been devoted to whining about how NATO is bad and to relaying the propaganda of the Kremlin.

So why do you want conversation about one to stop, but conversation about the other to continue? — Isaac

Stop lying, do try it once. I never ever said I wanted any conversation to stop. I said I wanted dishonesty, obscenities, lies and wilful misunderstanding to stop. I am also explaining what purpose is served by blaming NATO again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. The purpose is to try and deflect blame from the actual murderers.

Keep trying, by all means.

It's been suggested here that another measure could be: what course of action leads to the least number of death. — Benkei

Bombing cities lead -- I think -- to more deaths than cheerleading, so by your own yardstick it is morally far more disgusting to bomb civilians than to cheerlead anyone. And I agree with you!

But there is no moral question. We agree Putin is morally wrong and his war is illegal. We disagree about the role of the US. What is stupid is asking me to qualify Putin or the US as being better than the other. Criticism of the US and NATO is in no way, shape or form excuse Putin's moral responsibility in this. A murderer can't excuse himself by saying another person is a murderer too. — Benkei

You and I apparently agree that Mr Putin is morally wrong. But that does not apply to some other posters who cultivate far more ambiguity than that. You don't understand @boethius for instance, although you think you do. He is more sinister than you think.

Criticism of NATO was made here a long time ago, and we all or nearly all agreed that many errors were made and the US and EU have had their share of hypocrisy and immorality. But once this is agreed, you would expect the conversation to go back to Ukraine. Yet it does not... Some people want to talk about NATO again and again and again.

Why?

My hypothesis is that the point is to deflect blame from Mr Putin, which is why the guilt of NATO has to be mentioned constantly, and not just occasionally.

Well then there's little we can do to help you. — Isaac

You need more help than you can offer.

He wrote exactly what he wrote. — Isaac

I understood from what he wrote that cheerleading a Ukrainian is morally worse than killing a Ukrainian. If he meant something else, he is welcome to clarify.

I don't see how moral questions can be considered trivial or stupid questions on a philosophy forum. They are important, perhaps not politically but humanely. You don't want to ruin your soul for Putin.

You think I am stupid, Benkei?

Yet you just stated it wasn't. So here's already a circumstance where you think it's not the right thing to do, to support a victim of aggression. — Benkei

Good point. If the nation being attacked is led by a brutal dictatorship, it might not be the right thing to do to help this dictatorship defend itself, but it's still a morally good thing to help the people themselves; in any case it is better to help them than to kill them.

Err... The unicorn?

So you don't care about sovereignty and the crime of aggression is only aggression when you've established the victim of the crime deserves to be on the receiving end? — Benkei

What? Unclear, kindly rephrase. My position, so you remember what we are discussing, is:

I can't figure out any circumstances where helping a nation defend herself against aggression would be morally worse than said aggression.

Note the term 'nation' in there.

That depends — Isaac

Okay so you are not quite sure yet if Putin is morally superior to the EU and US in the circumstances, and lean to moral equivalence between them. Kindly confirm.

As for @boethius, he wrote clearly about his moral preference for murder over cheerleading.

Unclear, please rephrase.

It was not Saddam's war, it was Bush's war, remember? And if Iraq had been a democracy, as Ukraine is, if Saddam really embodied his nation's will, as Zelensky tries to do, then it would have been the right thing to do to help him against the aggressor. But he was in fact a worse murderer of Iraqis than Bush.

Okay, so Putin is morally superior -- in these circumstances in Ukraine -- to the EU and US, then, according to @boethius and you. Kindly confirm.

boethius has already done so, but it requires that you actually read that which you've prejudicially dismissed as 'meaningless text' — Isaac

You've read and agreed with it? Maybe you can explain to others here what the argument was? Because I cannot think of any evidence for the statement: "killing someone is morally superior to helping someone."

That's correct.
— Olivier5

Why not? — Benkei

I just can't figure out any circumstances where helping a nation defend herself against aggression would be morally worse than said aggression. If you think it is possible, do explain how.

I happen to think you say really stupid things at times. — Benkei

Feel free to ignore my feeble posts. :mask:

Or do you believe those circumstances don't exist? — Benkei

That's correct.

You can disagree but neither is Isaac a liar nor is Boethius writing meaningless posts. You are confusing your disagreement (and personal investment in your particular view) with bad faith on the part of others. — Benkei

You are confusing your own bad faith with sophistication.

He gave a 300 word answer of which you ignored 299. — Isaac

It is easy to write a lot of meaningless text.

Don't lie, Isaac. Just don't. You can live without it, trust me.

The Russians reported almost 10,000 soldiers deaths and 16,000 maimed yesterday, and then they pulled out the report. So after less than a month, this war is already costing them as much as years in Afghanistan.

Another month of this, and they won't have much of an army left.

He said that sending arms to Ukraine is more disgusting than bombing Ukraine. Literally.
— Olivier5

And under which circumstances/assumptions would that be true? — Benkei

Let @boethius answer that, since after all it's his assumption, and a disgusting one at that.

Teach us who do be disgusted by. — boethius

It's exactly as you said: we should be disgusted by anyone except by the actual professional killers.

Maybe with a few examples we could better understand your philosophy. — boethius

I support in theory (though I don't fund anyone) pretty much all peaceful liberation movements, have more problem with violent ones. I support the Scottish independence movement wholeheartedly for instance, but am more ambivalent about the IRA.

With the guns given to the Ukrainians, of course.

what's you plan of action? — boethius

First we take Moscow, then we take Berlin.

And, if Ukrainians are just and the just thing to do is to put down arms, why aren't you calling for the Ukrainians to put down their arms and do the right and ideal thing? — boethius

Because the right thing to do in front of naked aggression is rarely to lay down arms. This solves the immediate killing but only aggravates oppression and killings long term. Instead you must inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible, or the enemy will come back a year or a decade later.

It's your standard: pick a side, cheerlead one and condemn the other. — boethius

Who said anything about any standard? YOU said that they are so many wars, so why take side. I didn't say you must take side. Don't support the Ukrainians if you find their cause so disgusting.

so too the Americans, you agree with that? — boethius

Especially the Americans.

And, maybe bother to actually read my posts

Maybe you bother with intellectual honesty a bit more.

enlighten us with who's right and who's wrong in every contemporary war. — boethius

What would be the point, pray tell?

You seem to think that "defeating" the Russians on social media will somehow defeat them in the field.

This is not the case. — boethius

Indeed. They might very well win here and lose in front of Kyiv.

Mostly, people agree on what are good things and would prefer love and peace.

The question is how to get there. — boethius

And the answer is: through Putin.

Of course, the "ideal" end to the war would be everyone in the whole world, including Americans and gangs and the mafia, laying down their arms and talking things out in a bottom up participatory direct democracy. — boethius

Now you're talking. So ideally the Russians should lay down their arms and turn Russia into a vibrant democracy.

Glad we agree with that.

No one disagrees that Crimea is de facto now part of Russia and that won't change. — boethius

I actually disagree with that. I think it should be divided.

neo-Nazi's are a bad thing and policies should be agreed on by NATO, the EU, Russia and Ukraine on how to dismantle neo-Nazi organizations. — boethius

In Ukraine it is doable but I doubt it in the US, the EU or Russia. Neo-nazis are too deeply ingrained there.

If the goal is to minimise causalties, he questions the wisdom of sending arms. — Benkei

He said that sending arms to Ukraine is more disgusting than bombing Ukraine. Literally.

There is more than one war happening in the world at the moment.

Do you even know about the others, much less have picked one side and condemned the other? — boethius

I do. Why don't you discuss them, if they are so important to you?

Is that why you have to cheerlead the Russian side, a soddin' dictatorship bombing innocent people? Because there are other wars?

In my view, "morally right" would be turning Russia into an anarchist direct democracy. — boethius

Oh you know of things that are morally right? That wasn't apparent so far.

So what would be the ideal outcome of this war, according to you?

Empty words. Go bomb an Ukrainian if you want to be useful.

Nobody has disagreed with what Putin has done is morally wrong and that the Ukrainians should be helped as much as possible. — Benkei

@boethius disagrees with that.

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?
— Olivier5

Yes — boethius

You're more submissive than most people, I guess.

Were you ever a boy scout though?

You have not answered the question. You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions.
— Olivier5

Which question? — boethius

The one you took care to delete from my quote, of course:

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the armies destroying your cities?

You have not answered the question:

If that was to happen, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?

You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions.

I am not Russian, I have in fact trained to fight Russians and would do so. — boethius

You would do so? Like, if Russia was to attack your country you mean?

If that was to happen, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?