Oh, and training? Forget about it, you are going straight to Kherson! — SophistiCat

They're going to be killed. I don't understand it.

What would be concerning if no Russian would want (secretly?) regime change. Yet many opt to leave... perhaps the ghost of Stalin is too frightening. — ssu

I guess if Biden wanted stability in the region, he would try to help Russia save face right now, instead of humiliating the fuck out of Putin? Maybe that's not even in the cards, though.

Putin had a somewhat good run for Russia. — ssu

True. I think he was pretty well respected after Syria. How things change.

It's for real. — magritte

What's concerning (among all the concerning stuff) is that Biden doesn't want domestic tranquility in Russia. He wants regime change.

The wording "catastrophic consequences " was part of a message to the Kremlin from the White House regarding the use of tactical nukes. :eyes:

Ideally the profits should go back into the business in R&D and positioning for future growth. That kind of thing declined in the 1980s as corporations came to be seen as objects of raiding as opposed to essential features of communities.

The economic position of the average American has declined. Even as wages increase, they're in worse shape. You see this as attributable to Biden?

Stephen Pacala's statistics strikes me as like only blaming the CEOs of corporations for the majority of sweat shop slavery. As if we privileged first world peeps who buy sweat shop produced items aren't the main cause. — Yohan

I couldn't find his original statement anywhere. It's alluded to without any citation. Kind of useless.

If it were false then it's negation would be true, irrespective of our certainty and judgements and justifications. Which would be a contradiction. — Michael

Antirealism is about the world, not metaphysics.

Sometimes, in the real world, it is actually raining, and sometimes, in the real world, it actually isn't raining, irrespective of our certainty and judgements and justifications. — Michael

This is an assumption. You can invite people to share your assumptions, but you can't really bang them over the head with them. Assumptions have no weight.

Ha!

:grin: Or just go somewhere else. :up:

But then, if we already know who's trolling, do we need some infamous mark? Can't we just not feed them, as SophistiCat is saying? — Olivier5

I was just thinking of ways to discourage it. I get your point.

Posters should argue in good faith. But if we were to mod everything we thought was false, we'd not unjustifiably be accused of censorship and bias. — Baden

If someone argues for several pages that Russia invaded Ukraine to control Nazis, we know that poster is a troll. Couldn't we at least identify them as such? Like with a T over their avatar?

Have patience. Wait until the mud settles and the water is clear. Remain unmoving until right action arises by itself.

Laozi

:smile:

The internet is inundated with false information about Ukraine.

Is there any way this forum could be an oasis from that? For instance, could there be a standard of at least trying to present correct information?

A couple of the posters here have admitted they aren't interested in being truthful. Could we sanction that?

Carry on. You're doing fine. :up:

And yet here you are, saying something about that. — Isaac

Yeah. The US sent in 500 troops to support the Somali government. And you're waving the Somali flag.

:lol:

The more I read anti-NATO imperialism supporters the more I feel like becoming a NATO imperialist supporter: — neomac

Surely we don't have a good representation here. I'm not on Twitter or Facebook, so I don't know. I think we just have a couple of people who are trying to be emotionally abusive. Probably because it feels good to them.

Yeah, because a much more appropriate reaction to America running an actual insurance racket is to tut quietly and move on to the sports section. Pathetic. — Isaac

You still have your pro-American flag waving. I don't know what to say about that.

You have a strange notion of outrage. But then, you are addicted to me. — Streetlight

Fine. Bye.

It's like you have the memory retention of a goldfish. You're outraged anew every time you learn this stuff.

I just like the implication that displaying a literal other country's flag implies American support. — Streetlight

Good. Because it does. :lol:

No one is flying a Somali flag — Isaac

Because doing so is pro-American. :lol:

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St.

Mind blown.

Even If it doesn't mean that, for sure it presupposes that. I guess "Depth" is always where the real treasure is found. — dimosthenis9

I agree. :grin:

Truly’ experiencing anything is in the direction of a richer flow of change, not the accessing of a deeper inner dimension. — Joshs

Maybe so.

Kierkegaard said there are two ways to experience an event:

1. As if the world is new in this moment. There's an edge to events from this perspective. Anxiety and excitement are part of anticipation.

2. As if this is a repetition, another day, another Spring, another person doing x again. This perspective is characterized by melancholy (per SK). Success is less important (in a way). Defeat stings less because it's just another defeat in a long line of them.

One way isn't better than the other, except the second eayymay ease things when there is too much anxiety.

Noah's grandfather! Interesting.

I'm not interested in some archeological discussion on how the war in Ukraine goes back to Mathusalem. — Olivier5

I am, though. I need to understand the Mathusalem angle. Like who is he?

Nukes might have been the solution. — ssu

:up:

The more depth you discover, the closer you get to happiness and freedom etc. It's a never ending procedure. — dimosthenis9

I think that's true. Authenticity means leaving superficial rules behind?

One might argue that the feeling of depth is a function of the richness , intricacy and anticipative continuity of the surface movement or flow of our experience of events — Joshs

This is mainly in the realm of sensation? Depth as in truly tasting an apple instead of just chomping and swallowing?

concerning how effectively we are able to transform ourselves — Joshs

The move toward transformation is the topic of Sickness Unto Death.

For me, depth comes from awareness. To the extent that thinking and writing increases our awareness of ourselves, the world, and other people is the extent to which it has depth. In philosophy, I think the focus is on awareness of how we think, how we understand the world, how we know things.

I don't think my way of seeing things is all that different from yours. — T Clark

:up:

Russia: We like Ukrainians. Let's not bother them.

Putin: Let's invade.

*Putin shows how inept the Russian military actually is.*

NATO: moves East.

Real depth can be proven by certain criteria:
- connection with important concepts — Angelo Cannata

Like what?

Hmm. Are we arriving at the reason they banned you?

I mean, you can read what he said. Some of it is engraved on the wall behind that big statue of him in Washington.

Mobility by what process other than the fruits of one's labor? — ASmallTalentForWar

The vision of the free society is about social roles. No one is locked into a particular role.

How did Lincoln get into the position so that the split vote gave him the advantage? — ASmallTalentForWar

The Whig Party fell apart after the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln was instrumental in gathering all the anti-slavery groups together into the Republican Party. It was said that the more experienced politicians chose him as the presidential candidate because he was politically naive and they thought they would be able to control him.

The free society to Lincoln essentially meant free labor. — ASmallTalentForWar

That's incorrect. It meant social mobility.

This is what gave him the advantage in his pursuit of the presidency. — ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Southern Democrats walked out of the 1859 Democratic National Convention and subsequently ran their own candidate, splitting pro-slavery vote. That's how Lincoln won.

The abolition of slavery was essentially an economic necessity — ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Dred Scott decision promised to nationalize slavery, and the wisdom of the time was that once this happened slavery would never be uprooted from the USA.

Lincoln was a moderate in this sense and his principles aligned with theirs — ASmallTalentForWar

Lincoln made his principles known. He believed that slavery was a threat to the vision of the free society. Once people get used to someone else doing their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom.

Nevertheless, the free soil and free labor movement are what put him in power and eventually what won the civil war. — ASmallTalentForWar

This isn't true, but it's off topic to pursue it. :wink:

And where does he condemn slavery specifically because free laborers have to compete with slaves?