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?

What's there to "misunderstand"?

Both Johnson and @ssu have said that Russia will not destroy Finland. So, why are you concerned on behalf of the Finns?

And anyway, with Finland's microscopic and falling population, there may not be much left for the Russians to destroy "50 years from now".

But you can still think strategically if it makes you feel better .... :wink:

What's there to "misunderstand"? — Apollodorus

What I am saying.

Did you say something?
Anyways, life is short. So by all means, do keep telling the Finns what they ought to do, for all they care.

Why should reason be superior to say, love? — Olivier5

Why would love be something exclusive to religion?

I did but you were not interested.

The Finns will do whatever they want or can do. I am just saying that their position is not so hard to understand and to relate to. It all started with Chomsky who said in that vid posted by @Manuel that he was 'puzzled' by Sweden's will to join. He was puzzled by something rather simple, in my view.

And this puzzles me now: why was Chomsky, supposedly a smart guy, puzzled by something so damn obvious? Is he losing steam, becoming less than bright? Maybe. Or was he simply not too bothered to think about it, i.e. a bit lazy?

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.

No reason for it. My question was about the choice of rationality as a overarching criterion. Communism or Nazism are rational, far more rational than any humanism.

IOW, rationality alone is a recipe for disaster.

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

Correct. That's why I've been saying all along that philosophizing without knowing the facts is a waste of time.

Besides, Chomsky seems to be more of a political activist who uses philosophy as a cover for promoting his political agenda. A bit like Marx, Lenin, and Stalin ....

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

No reason for it. My question was about the choice of rationality as a overarching criterion — Olivier5

Rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy are four areas as a base. Love is a concept that's too flimsy as a factor to determine how to live. Most people don't even understand what love is, how it's formed and art has been created to try and "understand it". If we are to find guidance as human beings, we can find it through those areas. Love and emotion can exist regardless but keeping the brain behind the steering wheel is essential for a society of irrational beings.

But communism or Nazism are rational, far more rational than any humanism. — Olivier5

They are rational as concepts defining other invented concepts. Humanism has less bogged down with poorly invented concepts and generally focus on the basic core need of humans. But Nazism isn't rational, it's based on bad science, and false ideas. Communism, as we've seen it in the 20th century, is a corruption of ideas that were logical during the 19th century, but not so much today.

IOW, rationality alone is a recipe for disaster. — Olivier5

That's why I said rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy, not just rationality.

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

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. Just as the US invading Iraq doesn't mean they'll invade everywhere. Countries have strategic reasons for, and strategic obstacles to, invading places. The balance of reasons and obstacles is what motivates a decision. Their invasions here are being used as an example of another country frequently invading places but one which no European countries consider a threat - demonstrating the mere willingness to invade is not sufficient ground for everyone to consider them a threat. That you have some kind of allergic reaction to mentions of the US is not my problem.

https://samf.substack.com/p/a-victory-parade-without-victories?r=9bgl3&s=r

“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

So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?

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

I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.

These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. — 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.

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

Your sycophancy is not an argument.

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

No. The US has raped and executed civilians. So has Russia. You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. Russia, you say, has done it more. Unless you're arguing that the US soldiers accidentally raped the victims in Columbia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/us-army-colombia-rapes-investigation

Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place. — Christoffer

The intention isn't in question. The solution is. Neutrality can be a defence against attack as well as a risk.

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

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.

Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them. — Christoffer

Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it.

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

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.

This is a matter of life and death, probably not the best topic for some uninformed, lazy rambling by a non-specialist... — Olivier5

Yes, perhaps you should call it a day.

...like Chomsky — Olivier5

Oh, I see. Amateur. Your qualifications are?

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

That is not a counter-argument. I could say the same to you, you ignore what Russia has done in Ukraine and shift focus away from it instead. 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. If you can't spot the differences between the two then you're just plain stupid.

Your sycophancy is not an argument. — Isaac

Your whataboutism isn't either.

You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. — Isaac

No, by the systematic nature of it.

The intention isn't in question. The solution is. Neutrality can be a defence against attack as well as a risk. — Isaac

Oh, why didn't you tell that to the Ukrainians, maybe that would have kept Russia from invading? :shade:
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you speak about Finland and Sweden. Your argument is fucking naive.

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

Why wouldn't they? It's systematic, that's why. And joining Nato means Russia won't dare attack, 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? The key here is that you just ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your worldview. Russia won't attack a Nato member because that would mean annihilation of Russia, period.

Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it. — Isaac

No, that's in your head. I don't understand how you conclude something like this when the reality is that Russia won't dare attack a Nato member. Stop making shit up to fit your narrative it's embarrassing to witness.

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

Russia can feel whatever the fuck they want. Nato is the only thing that creates an existential threat to them. They can have a fantasy of Nato invading them but that won't happen because it's a fucking defensive alliance with a democratic function for action. The US could say they want to attack Russia but 29 other nations can vote them down. What Russia delusionally believe is fucking irrelevant, the fact is that because Nato is too powerful for Russia to face, they cannot dare attack Sweden and Finland if we join... that is the fucking point. Sick and tired of you making shit up and believing you understand the situation of Finland and Sweden. You have some utopian ideal of neutrality keeping the Russian bear away, but Russia showed the world just who they are when they invaded Ukraine so we don't give a fuck about Russia, we want to be secure from their brutality and toxic stupidity. Whatever fantasy you think is an alternative, we don't have any alternatives for security, fucking understand already.

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

It means that the Russians could potentially try and invade (or try to otherwise damage militarily) some of their other neighbours. They've just unleashed some pretty extreme brutality onto Ukraine so they can do it to others. It's not beyond them.

Your qualifications are? — Isaac

For one, I can understand the need of other human beings for a sense of security.

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

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.

You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. — Isaac


No, by the systematic nature of it. — Christoffer

You've given no account of anything systematic other than some unspecified number of alleged rapes.

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

Do you even have a concept of disagreement? Is everything either agreeing or misunderstanding?

Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it. — Isaac


No, that's in your head. — Christoffer

No, @ssu's head. It was his post I got it from.

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

On the same grounds. 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?

Good recap of what's going on in Donbas.
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/05/10/russia-s-long-shot-in-the-donbas

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

Yes you do need security against America when you are in their crosshair. And even more so if America becomes a ruthless, immoral dictatorship. Fascist for real, I mean, like when people like Chomsky are put in concentration camps. Every democracy on earth would then be in their crosshair so that would be an unmitigated disaster.

Yes you do need security against America when you are in their crosseye. — Olivier5

Right. 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.

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

I didn't think your inability to understand what the fuck is being said could be so bad. Instead, you keep going with the loaded question fallacies just because you can't grasp the differences I presented.

You've given no account of anything systematic other than some unspecified number of alleged rapes. — Isaac

By the reports of the investigators in Ukraine. You want to keep play the numbers game instead of actually listening to the conclusions of the investigations. You can find them yourself if you cared to actually do any type of research that doesn't confirm your already existing opinions.

Do you even have a concept of disagreement? Is everything either agreeing or misunderstanding? — Isaac

Facts about how Nato works don't care about your fucking opinion of how it works. You live in a fantasy that supports your opinion and make shit up trying to argue for it. It's hollow.

No, ssu's head. It was his post I got it from. — Isaac

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, @ssu?

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, ssu? — Christoffer

It's here

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

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

What Russia says, threatens, and put in propaganda is not the same as what they actually do. Just like they said they wouldn't invade Ukraine for months before actually invading Ukraine. How can you be this fucking stupid to not see what @ssu meant with that statement?

They threaten us because they think we will bend to their will, because that is what they want us to do. If you think they will attack us when we are Nato members you are seriously delusional.

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.

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

Uh Oh. War in South America on the horizon...

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

That's just whataboutism. Nothing to see with Finland's and Sweden's reasons to fear Russian. Either you take the issue seriously, or you don't.

FYI, Russia and the US continually breach air space (usually very nearly and then turn away at the last moment) to test scrambling time of fighter jets, scouting and radar effectivity. This is really not a thing. Dutch air space gets breached by Russia every month or so.

It happened 350 times in 2020 and 290 times in 2021 with respect to Russians testing air space alertness of NATO members, including the US but mostly the Baltic states.