X is a moral intuition because most people believe X. — schopenhauer1

I can't think of a situation where it is a valid statement, but maybe you can change my mind.

If I had to define moral behavior on the fly, its defining charateristic seems that it is always linked to contributing to the genuine long-term well-being of all its participants.

Sometimes the two coincide, i.e. a behavior that contributes to long-term well-being is also believed my most people to indeed to be moral, but the "most people" part would not carry much relevance.

What criteria would you use to include a character on or off such a list? — universeness

The list - obviously- wouldn't include hypersexualized characters like 's hunky fireman.

That's drag queens, not transgenderism. — Michael

Fair enough.

I don't think most people will be able to make that distinction and consider them at the very least closely related.

And I'm not sure what you mean by normal. — Michael

Do you think letting hypersexualized cross-dressing men/women 'educate' children under the age of 10 is normal?

I've no problem with transgenders, but just out of curiousity, do you think this is normal?

Because I think that's the part that people interpret as threatening, aggressive, etc.

In addition to things like attempting to control speech. I would consider that deeply objectionable.

I'm sure (ergo, I hope) these things aren't indicative of the 'trans minority' as a whole, but these are the things people are confronted by in the news,

A portion of the trans minority seems to have gone off the deep end, and that portion remains very loud. A PR problem perhaps, as people have mentioned earlier.

Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea. — Christoffer

... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and his nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light.

It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency.

You're just making a fool of yourself at this point.

I think this thread has fried some people's brains. — Christoffer

A bit ironic.

using known conspiracy theory bloggers — Christoffer

Excuse me?

You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty. — Christoffer

That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field.

That you don't like what I have to say is completely unrelated.

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. — Christoffer

The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration.

We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist.

The US has been profiting immensely from blowing up the pipeline.


The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part.

False, the navy former officer specified the ship identity and the tracker before it was turned off was linked to the exact ship. — Christoffer

That's the narrative.

The actual thing that happened (from what I'm able to tell) is he correlated AIS data with intercepted emissions.

That's both unlikely, and not sufficient for an identification.

Unlikely because military vessels can turn off their AIS at will or tamper with the vessel information - even produce ghost contacts. In addition, one would expect military vessels to practice EMCON while on a covert mission, even moreso because nothing the vessel was supposedly engaged in would require it to make use of military-purpose active sensors that could be used to identify it.

Not sufficient for identification because of the aforementioned, and also for other more practical reasons like passive intercepts being generally unsuited for a precise localization (and thus correlation), especially without triangulation from multiple stations. How exactly did the retired navy officer get his hands on this type of hardware again?

So you are clearly wrong and once again try to strawman their findings. — Christoffer

I think you simply lack the practical knowledge to understand my objections.

Doesn't matter if they mask themselves among the hundreds of thousands of ships in the area. — Christoffer

Except that the story goes that they didn't mask themselves.

Apparently they left port with their name plate on display and kept their active sensors on, without apparent reason other than it being very convenient for the story.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. — Tzeentch

This shows that you just skimmed through everything. — Christoffer

What it shows is that I understand how these systems work and what constitutes an actual ship identification, rather than a dramatized collection of circumstantial evidence.

The unconventional methods used are not anticipated by Russian covert ops, [...] — Christoffer

What exactly was unconventional about the methods? The method is never really explained, but from what I gather they used AIS data, passive intercepts and satellite imagery; that's about as conventional as it gets.

And the Swedish navy is an expert hunter for Russian subs. Do you know how many they've pushed back from our waters over the years? Do you think the presence of our navy is less after the Ukraine invasion? Do you think it's intelligent for Russians to use subs in Swedish waters when our entire sub fleet has been specifically built to counter Russian submarine designs? — Christoffer

It sounds like you are confusing territorial waters with Economic Exclusive Zones. To reach Bornholm island there is no need to enter Swedish territorial waters, and Bornholm Island itself is located in the Danish waters. The sabotage was conducted on the border of Danish territorial waters and the Danish/Swedish EEZ border.

If you want to live in a fantasy where Sweden sees all that happens in a noisy, shallow sea like the Baltic, be my guest, I suppose - shows what you know.

[...] why would anyone track a ships location pre-explosions? — Christoffer

Because NATO and Russia have been practically at war since February 2022. I'd expect western intelligence agencies to keep tabs on literally every Russian vessel they can, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas.

No, they have verified signatures for a specific ship. — Christoffer

There's no such thing, except maybe acoustic signatures, which weren't mentioned (and civilians don't have access to). They mention a handful of visual characteristics which we are then to assume are present on the irrecognizable white blotches we see on the satellite imagery.

There are military installations that can passively detect and identify specific sensor emissions, and identifying a set of sensors can create a profile that can match a certain vessel. There are three problems with that, however:

1. This type of equipment is not readily available outside of the military.
2. This is why militaries practice EMCON (emissions control) during operations, especially clandestine ones.
3. This would all have been available information to the various militaries and agencies surveilling the Baltic Sea.

To reiterate, this would have been basic stuff. Literally the first things that would have been done when trying to discover whodunnit - check positioning logs, satellite imagery, and data from the numerous listening installations that line the Baltic coasts.

For this information to just 'pop up' out of nowhere while the US has already pressed the panic button is very hard to believe.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'retired UK intelligence officer' was just logging positions on https://www.marinetraffic.com, since it actually passes on the screen at one point in the documentary.

[... ] he used his retirement time to specifically track ships around the Nordic region and mapping behaviors using a specific tracking technique. — Christoffer

A secret technique which we never get any insight into, and is somehow unknown to professional militaries who have access to every type of surveillance imaginable?

Again, color me skeptical.

If they had used a Russian sub and torpedos it would have shown signs of that kind of attack. You're just pulling ideas out of your ass now without any regard for what the consequence of different strategies would be. — Christoffer

If you're going to accuse me of "pulling ideas out of my ass" then maybe not display your ignorance so blatantly.

Obviously they wouldn't have to use torpedos. Their submarines can lay mines and launch divers, underwater vessels and drones.

To use a ship that is among hundreds of thousands of other ships in the Nordic region is obviously a much more covert and intelligent strategy. — Christoffer

That's begging the question, isn't it?

How many ships in the Nordic region have the letters "CC-750" on their hulls, hm?

Are you sure conducting underwater sabotage in broad daylight with a submarine tender would classify as "covert and intelligent"?

If you've actually watched it through and especially the third episode, then you are just ignoring the fact that the ship in question, the one with underwater operation capabilities was at the location of the explosions, turning off their commercial trackers, stopped, went back to Kaliningrad, turned off normal communication, went back and turned off their trackers again and held positions for a long period of time right at the site just days around the explosions occurred. Verified by both satellite and the former Navy operator separately. — Christoffer

All we see are blips on a map and the vaguest of satellite imagery.

Military ships aren't required to use AIS. The US navy sails around without AIS 24/7. Moreover, navies use a special version of AIS that allows them to manipulate the ship ID data.

Warship Automatic Identification System (WAIS) enables the operator to adjust the own ship’s visibility, vary the information the own ship transmits (including its identity, size, and type), and create and place simulated vessels.

It would have made a whole lot more sense if while carrying out such a high-risk operation, they would never have turned AIS on, and maintained EMCON throughout the mission. Supposed 'retired UK intelligence officers' aren't the only one's listening in around the Baltic. All of NATO is too.

The idea that the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't produce more than a few blips on a map and the grainiest of satellite imagery is just the type of naivety that would make this theory plausible. Had the Russians been this obvious about it, there wouldn't have been a mystery in the first place.

Moreover, the Russians own the pipeline. They know where it is located and have the capacity to carry out the operation via submarine, completely covertly.


The story doesn't really provide evidence, nor does it add up.

On top of this, it's clear that Russian civilian ships are almost all involved with surveillance everywhere around the Nordic region, spying on everything based on their deviant movement from their commercial purpose, right at times when something else is in the area that would be of interest as intel to Russia. — Christoffer

That much has been clear since the Cold War.

But you don't think any of this is significant because of what a half-demented president, vaguely said and you interpreted as an admission of guilt. — Christoffer

An overt threat by the US president and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, both basically outright saying they will blow up the pipeline, is a very strong indication of guilt - yes.

I think it requires an ungodly amount of confirmation bias not to interpret that as such.

The fact that the US threw Ukraine under the bus in a panic move when the Hersh story came out, makes its innocence even less likely.

But then again, I don't think you watched it at all. I just think you try to bullshit your way through this. — Christoffer

Yes I did. I'm just a little less naive.

I've already watched it, and no actual evidence is presented.

I'm talking about Nord Stream, in case that wasn't clear.

That the Russians are floating around scanning the seabed with civilian vessels is nothing new. Hell, I don't even doubt they could have conducted the Nord Stream sabotage if they had wanted to.

This is a picture of a seperate event. The Russians have been conducting surveillance with civilian ships since time immemorial, so I'm not sure what you believe any of this proves.

I thought you were accusing me of not 'looking into the evidence in detail'.

Where's this evidence?

Alrighty, then. :up:

Return with something more tangible after you've looked into the evidence in detail, [...] — Christoffer

This is a bit cute, considering there's no evidence whatsoever presented in any of these reports.

To reiterate, the US story about a Ukrainian 'group' was full-blown panic in reaction to Hersh's story. There's no way they would have made such a move if they knew the official investigation was on the Russians' tail.

And you really think that if they had footage supposedly depicting Russian ships conducting the sabotage, that the US would be so eagerly throwing its ally under the bus?

Get real.

Half a year on they suddenly find a box of photographs of the Russians caught in the act?

Color me skeptical.


Besides, it couldn't have been the Russians because we already have US intelligence officials going on record claiming the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian 'group'. :snicker:

Why would the US deliberately be spreading bullshit (obfuscating the investigation) if they weren't trying to cover their tracks?

Robert Kennedy is a democrat, or is this just a random rant about the republican party?

Crickets? Really??

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'appreciate', but this is what I've come to expect - people losing their shit over some simple questions, probably because they realize they lack a good answer to them.

No. This does not logically follow. — I like sushi

How does that not logically follow?

An imposition happens when we knowingly bring about a set of circumstances that affect another human being without their say in the matter.

That applies to child-having, regardless of where one stands on the ethics question.

Do my eyes deceive me, or may the American people get a chance to vote for an actual person rather than condemning the world to another 4 years of (p/m)uppetry?

In comparison to religion, [...] — Christoffer

I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science.

The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed. — Christoffer

I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application.

Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other [...] — Christoffer

Certainly!

My point was more that people are turning science into something else - something that resembles a new kind of religion.

And that kind of ties into my next point:

Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, [...] — Christoffer

I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.

The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology.

So how can we behave ethically towards what amounts to a thought? — NOS4A2

All our behavior is aimed at a future state, which in essence is no more than a thought.

It’s just difficult to believe that feeding, educating, clothing, housing, playing, and caring for someone for the better part of their life is a burden or imposition on the child, when it is the parent who is spending the time, resources, and energy to do so. — NOS4A2

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both a burden on the parent and a burden on the child. It further begs the question why the parent chooses to set this all in motion.

Procreation suggests that a child is created, and not taken against his will and forced into some realm not of his choosing. — NOS4A2

To me the difference between the two is semantical.

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child.

It’s like saying planting an acorn is an imposition on an oak, and we shouldn’t burden it by watering it. — NOS4A2

That's not quite what I'm saying.

It's the ethics of having a child ('planting the acorn') which I am questioning. When that child is conceived, we have passed that stage and we're in a new situation.

I'd actually say the questionable nature of their initial action makes the ethical burden on the parents to ensure the well-being of their child ('watering the plant') even heavier.

People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, ... — I like sushi

It's fine that you think that way, but this is obviously what is up for debate, so simply saying it is reasonable isn't really partaking in the discussion.

The argument presented seems rather slippery.

When I enjoy something and wish for others to enjoy it too, can I just impose it on them?

That doesn't seem to hold up anywhere else in ethics or life in general, biological processes or no.

Isn't that part of the reasoning behind child-having? — schopenhauer1

I don't think reason plays much of a role.

The idea that child-having is good simply goes unchallenged, and is affirmed by a biological desire to procreate, and an ungodly amount of wishful thinking that goes into envisioning the life of one's future child.

It simply doesn't occur to most people that their child may end up a criminal, a drug addict, suicidally depressed, chronically ill, etc. - and that they, the parent, may actively contribute to causing these things!

I want to mentor someone, thus I need a recipient. — schopenhauer1

There are plenty of already-living recipients*, so it's quite easy to assume some ulterior motive if someone were to present this as their reason.

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having.


*whose lives one may positively contribute to without having to impose anything!

So you don’t think people feel they have a mandate to create “opportunities” of struggle for others? — schopenhauer1

I think people saying as much are fooling themselves. Likely their motivations are a lot more selfish, and what they're putting forward is an attempt to rationalize their selfishness, and disguise it as altruism.

As for child-having, I don't believe people genuinely hold the view that the point of having a child is to create opportunities of struggle for them.

Either way, I don't take the argument very seriously.

After all, it could be turned from an unethical imposition into a consensual act by simply asking the person rather than imposing blindly. That is obviously impossible in the case of child-having, which makes that matter more complicated.

I don't believe people genuinely think it is their duty to make other people (their children) struggle.

It sounds more like the mental gymnastics that happens when people's previously unchallenged notions about child-having get called into question.

I find it unconvincing from A to Z (as I'm sure you do too), and honestly can't be bothered to engage with views that I am certain people don't genuinely hold.

It's pretty clear that the answer is no.

Sammy can't simply impose a burden on Johnny just because Sammy "felt like it," or even because they thought Johnny would benefit from it. It's an act of force - a violation of Johnny's autonomy as a human being.

Though, in the context of parenting: the parent has already made the morally questionable decision of throwing a child into this world, and insofar as the further burdens put on the child by the parent are effective at lessening its suffering, I'd say that's not necessarily unethical. The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces.

Have you ever seen an evildoer who seemed genuinely happy? They all seem miserable to me in one way or another, or at the very best parked in some form of joyless limbo.

Evil is a product of delusion (perhaps is in fact synonymous to it), because surely only ignorance would move man to act in ways that make him miserable.

Man is inherently good, because he desires above all things truth and genuine happiness.
However, man is also inherently ignorant, which has a tendency to delude him in regards to the nature of these things, especially when deprived of those things he desires most.

Can you expand on this, especially ignorance of self? — Tom Storm

When one's needs aren't met, it creates suffering and pain.

A failure to acknowledge this will inevitably cause the pain to be suppressed, so as to avoid the pain of having to process these emotions. It ends up in what Jung called the shadow.

From there, the pain will find an outlet in other forms. Anxiety, depression, and of course resentment. anger, projection, etc.

Because the person is psychologically wounded, the well-being of other persons becomes less important to them.

The person ends up in a spiral of desperately attempting to have their needs met, while not truly understanding what their needs are and where their suffering stems from (because this issue was put in the freezer a long time ago). Failed attempts cause further suffering and compound the problem, ending up in a vicious cycle.

The tragedy is that people who undergo this aren't aware of it at all until they find help at a later stage, if they find help at all. They might think, at least on the conscious level, their actions are perfectly normal, and that isn't strange considering how prone we humans are to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. (Though, because subconsciously one might be aware, these abnormal behaviors tend to make the condition worse.)

Their ignorance ensures their fate is sealed, unless they receive help or come to realize their predicament through some form of crisis.

If neither happens, the shadow grows until eventually it starts lashing out in behavior which we might term "evil".

My view is that man's nature is inherently good, and evil behavior is the result of unmet needs coupled with ignorance of the self.

[...] from a military perspective it makes no sense to communicate an imminent attack. — Benkei

It could be part of a deception campaign. Military deception is a big part of Soviet doctrine, which is what the Ukrainian army mostly runs on. I'm sure the Americans advising the Ukrainians will also seek to leverage whatever advantage they can.

Given the circumstances it is not likely, but I'm inclined to give the idea at least some credit. The Russians seem to have taken it seriously enough to dig in across the entire frontline.

The main thing I'm wondering about is if posters like have some interesting information to share.

Considering the fact that scientists are attempting to look 13,800,000,000 years into the past, I'd say they're functionally the same.

My guess is the chance of both being wrong is vastly greater than either being right, so what's the point of believing?

As I said in my post:

There's at least a chance that Ukraine has successfully held back an amount of troops, materiel and ammunition to be able to conduct an offensive.I don't think the chance is particularly high, and the chances of this being a form of propaganda/information warfare seems more likely to me. — Tzeentch

This is of course referring to the rumored 'spring offensive'. How the war develops further in the future we cannot know.

Some thoughts as to why an imminent Ukrainian offensive seems unlikely:
- the attrition rate at Bakhmut
- the closing window of opportunity while the Russians are occupied at Bakhmut
- the state of Ukrainian air power and air defense
- the lack of Ukrainian armor
- the Russians having dug in all across the frontline

I'm kind of curious what positives someone who believes in an imminent offensive would look at to think it is feasible.

Koffman has been one of the figures creating the 'rumors' I mentioned in my post, so his positions are basically what is up for debate.

As of yet, no Ukrainian offensive.

Do you (continue to(?)) subscribe to Koffman's position?

It won't replace religion. It will become a religion. In many ways it already is.

For example, a belief in the big bang isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth.

Do you have any links to the piece you're referring to?