The number of true atheists in this world is extremely low and that is a testament to how irrational the human being really is. To be truly free of the influence of our stupid side requires an extreme ability of observational capacity; to see the irrationality in others and one self and truly reject it. — Christoffer
Why should reason be superior to say, love? — Olivier5
This is a matter of life and death, probably not the best topic for some uninformed, lazy rambling by a non-specialist like Chomsky. He should know better than that. — Olivier5
No reason for it. My question was about the choice of rationality as a overarching criterion — Olivier5
But communism or Nazism are rational, far more rational than any humanism. — Olivier5
IOW, rationality alone is a recipe for disaster. — Olivier5
I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. — Olivier5
“Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.”
If Finland were in NATO this would be less likely to happen in Finland. — Punshhh
I doubt at the moment that Finland is under threat from a Russian invasion in the current circumstances. But that is not necessarily why they want to join NATO. — Punshhh
These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. — Christoffer
US does not seek to “defeat” Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong. — George Friedman - Stratfor
It's you people who argue with numbers comparing 20 years of a multinational conflict with three months of Russian troops in a small number of cities and villages that's systemic in nature. It's you who require a number to value the atrocities. — Christoffer
Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place. — Christoffer
You ignoring the blatant evidence of how the Russian military actually acts is not sufficient or logical to conclude it not be just as reckless in invading Finland or Sweden. — Christoffer
Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them. — Christoffer
Invading before that would however be exactly like Ukraine as there's no guarantee for us to get help from other nations. Therefore we seek security. — Christoffer
It might be important for your evangelical condemnation, but I doubt the families of the 22,000 dead are much consoled by some apologist's theorising that they didn't mean to. — Isaac
Your sycophancy is not an argument. — Isaac
You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. — Isaac
The intention isn't in question. The solution is. Neutrality can be a defence against attack as well as a risk. — Isaac
No one's ignoring the brutality of the Russian attack, it's just that the brutality alone in Ukraine isn't evidence that it will do the same to every neighbouring country, nor that joining NATO will prevent it. — Isaac
Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it. — Isaac
Right. So the decision is based on whether declaring an intention to join NATO increases that risk in the intervening time, or increases the scale of the threat if Russia feel backed into a corner. — Isaac
Yes, and I was pointing out that being a bad neighbour to Ukraine is not sufficient ground for such action. Invading Ukraine does not alone mean they'll invade everywhere. — Isaac
This is like you saying a construction worker who mismanaged and fucked up his responsibilities which resulted in a building collapsing and killing innocents is the same as that construction worker intentionally going into the building, raping, torturing, and executing those civilians for no reason. — Christoffer
You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. — Isaac
No, by the systematic nature of it. — Christoffer
why can't you fucking understand how Nato works for once in this thread? Why do we have to explain this to you over and over? — Christoffer
Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it. — Isaac
No, that's in your head. — Christoffer
It means that the Russians could potentially try and invade (or try to otherwise damage militarily) some of their other neighbours. They've just did it to Ukraine so they can do it to others. It's not beyond them. — Olivier5
The US invaded a foreign nation hundreds of miles away in Iraq, so they can do it to others.
So do you need security against America? Or is it, just possibly, more than mere willingness to invade which determines which country is a security risk to whom? — Isaac
So you are making the argument that those women were accidentally raped in Columbia? I didn't think your bootlicking would really descend that disgustingly low, but apparently I was wrong. — Isaac
You've given no account of anything systematic other than some unspecified number of alleged rapes. — Isaac
Do you even have a concept of disagreement? Is everything either agreeing or misunderstanding? — Isaac
No, ssu's head. It was his post I got it from. — Isaac
It's here
Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — Isaac
So the question is not whether Russia has invaded other countries, it's whether Finland are in their 'crosseye'. No one has, as yet, given the slightest evidence that they are. — Isaac
The Russians have flown four military jets in Swedish air space early March. Two of those were reportedly equipped with nuclear weapons, although this was not confirmed officially. A Russian army helicopter violated Finland's airspace today. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.