I don’t think there is a conspiracy of any sort because most are too dumb to pull it off. — NOS4A2

Dumb and no conspiracy, yet they keep managing to send people's children off to wars no one asked for.

The 70 year old anti-vax conspiracy theorist — Mr Bee

You should probably listen to what the guy has to say first, instead of parroting slogans peddled by political rivals.

This is exactly why you don't get better candidates, you see?

In fact, this whole thread seems to be a microcosm for why that is. Many here seem to deem themselves above all the bullshit, yet are playing the exact same game as the masses.

Intelligent people shouldn't be taking the US elections at face value, but try to make sense of it through the acknowledgement that in the West too we are living in corrupt oligarchies.

To make this thread more interesting, here are some questions/statements that should stir up some debate.

- Polarizing figures like Biden and Trump are instrumental to keeping the US public divided (thus weak), bickering over subjects that don't matter to the US elites, so said elites can push their own agendas in the background.

- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split makes it easy for the elites to manipulate the outcome of the election.

- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split significantly increases the influence of lobbies and voting blocs. (In case anyone is wondering where for example Israel's lobbying power comes from)

- That Biden was going to lose the debate was obvious. Therefore, whoever put him up to it must have had this as their goal.

Let's hear what you have to say.

Moral philsophy isn't just a means of social control, it is also a means of resisting social control.

When society attempts to impose upon us "You must do X, because X is good.", we may require some reply as to why we disagree. In these cases, we cannot refer to the Tao, because it is too esoteric for that. One requires earthly, conclusive arguments.

The two seem to serve different purposes, and personally that's how I've always treated them. Moral philosophy is perhaps more of a tool or a brain exercise. For wisdom I would rather defer to the likes of Lao Tzu or Plato.

Hm. I would disagree.

The uninvolved bystander isn't responsible for the well-being of other people, and that includes children.

Of course, why on earth somebody who is interested in behaving morally would let a child drown is a fair question, but also irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are responsible.

Man, that's crazy.

I didn't watch the debate. Is it worth watching for comedic value?

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive and proactive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism (cf. chauvinism and ultranationalism).

Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests. Ultranationalist entities have been associated with the engagement of political violence even during peacetime. The belief system has also been cited as the inspiration for acts of organized mass murder in the context of international conflicts, with the Cambodian genocide being cited as an example.

In ideological terms, scholars such as the British political theorist Roger Griffin have found that ultranationalism arises from seeing modern nation-states as living organisms which are directly akin to physical people because they can decay, grow, and die, and additionally, they can experience rebirth. In stark mythological ways, political campaigners have divided societies into those societies which are perceived as being degenerately inferior and those societies which are perceived as having great cultural destinies. Ultranationalism has been an aspect of fascism, with historic governments such as the regimes of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany building on ultranationalist foundations by using specific plans for supposed widespread national renewal.

What I find particularly interesting is the notion that not getting involved is equated to commiting the act.

I understand the allure of such a view - on the surface it seems to make sense in certain situations - but the implications are absurd.

Lets say person A murders person B, is person C now responsible?

I think the word "innocent" is used more in the sense of "uninvolved".

As I've pointed out earlier, if someone were to push a person on the train tracks, even if their intentions were good, they would be going to jail for murder. There's not a country in the world where this would be seen as the correct thing to do.

I'd agree that legality is a very limited scope of viewing moral problems, but when the world unanimously agrees on something one would have to concede that arguing for pulling the lever is fighting an uphill battle, to put it mildly.

In my view, we can't just go around instrumentalizing the lives of uninvolved ("innocent") bystanders whenever we deem the outcome to be good.

Besides, in the face of morally ambiguous problems we have a perfectly morally acceptable option open to us: do not get involved.

P2: We are not responsible for situations where people require help. — Ourora Aureis

I disagree with premise 2, it must be justified. — Ourora Aureis

?

So you believe you have a responsibility to help others, and not doing so requires a justification, and what you just posted is your justification? :chin:

How do you justify not being a saint?

So are you some kind of saint that spends their entire life helping others?

The idea of killing vs letting die is a silly distinction, the value of our actions can only derive from their consequences. — Ourora Aureis

I think it's a crucial distinction, and also a more accurate representation of cause and effect.

If one refuses to involve themselves in the dilemma, the deaths are not a consequence of one's actions. They're a consequence of the actions of whoever put the people on the track.

At any given moment we are choosing inaction towards countless situations which are in dire need of a hero. Equating action and inaction would make one morally responsible for neglecting every single one of them.

It's the inaccurate representation of cause and effect which leads to absurd conclusions.

Israeli authorities, Palestinian armed groups are responsible for war crimes, other grave violations of international law, UN Inquiry finds

In relation to Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza, the Commission found that Israeli authorities are responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare, murder or wilful killing, intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, forcible transfer, sexual violence, torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, arbitrary detention and outrages upon personal dignity.

The Commission found that the crimes against humanity of extermination, gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys, murder, forcible transfer, and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were also committed.

Memories of Srebrenica...

That is very interesting.

To be honest, I understand very little about the mathematical underpinnings, but I think I understand your point. Time and distance behave differently so cannot be substituted - something that intuitively appears agreeable.

Do you know why they behave differently?

When writing down the example I realized that we cannot move back and forth in time as one could with distance, but there might be more to it?

The distinction between true and false has not simply been blurred, it has been destroyed. — Fooloso4

That certainly is older than Trump. The US has been plunging regions of the world into chaos over fabrications like it is the national pastime.

The game simulates being able to perceive a 4th dimension as a 3-dimensional observer, essentially perceiving a 4th dimension, one 3-dimensional plane at a time.

A 4-dimensional observer would perceive everything contained within the 4 dimensions simultaneously.


Though, I'm not sure whether simulating 4-dimensional space is the most intuitive way to understand the problem, since space in our universe seems fundamentally 3-dimensional? Maybe theories concerning the existence of dark matter changes things, but it's certainly counter-intuitive.


Perhaps a more intuitive way to imagine four dimensions is as follows:
1. Imagine observing a town. (Normal 3-dimensionality)

2. Imagine observeing the town throughout time. (Observing 4-dimensionality as a 3-dimensional observer, like the game). Note that people already do this.

3. Imagine being able to observe the town throughout time in its totality, instead of one 3-dimensional snapshot at a time.

Note also that the breadth of the time window one would be able to perceive simultaneously would be limited by whatever sense organ one would use to perceive it.

Finally, note that it's impossible to "bump into" time (as per your question), because its nature is different from space.

3 weeks before Oct. 7, IDF Gaza Division warned of Hamas plan to attack, take 250 hostages (Times of Israel, 2024)

Previously I had not taken the idea that Israel had prior knowledge of the October 7th attacks too seriously. At most I figured there may have been vague warnings that could not conceivably cover the scale of the eventual attack.

It turns out I was wrong.

Apparently the IDF knew almost exactly what was coming, predicting the number of hostages with a scary degree of accuracy.

Did Israeli leadership knowingly let the October 7th attack happen in order to justify an ethnic cleansing of Gaza before the balance of power in the Middle-East decisively shifted against it?

And, of note, the US has not blockaded or otherwise physically interfered with Russia's ability to trade, so that they'd be willing to cross that line with China seems far fetched to me. — boethius

Truly?

I'm convinced the second conflict breaks out, all of China's sea trade will be cut off and that this is their main strategic challenge. This threat is what prompted them to launch the Belt & Road Initiative - to create overland alternatives to US-dominated sea lanes.

The threat is strategic in nature. That is to say, during peace-time all is well, but during war all of these trump cards would be played. And if you're China or Russia, and you see the US quietly collecting trump cards against you, they perceive that as a threat. It's essentially a knife aimed at their throat.

When the conflict finally happens it will be framed in such a way that China is the bad guy, and 'the West' will unquestioningly accept the American narrative as truth, as we saw in the Ukraine crisis.

I just don't see how the US could maintain such a blockade of any extended period of time. — boethius

Note that cutting off sea trade is different from a total blockade. The US and its Pacific allies don't need a total blockade, because they control several rings of islands and straits that would make it extremely easy to monitor and target Chinese sea traffic.

Crippling Chinese trade would be a walk in the park for the US. The Chinese know this, and it's also the reason why the Chinese are very careful to avoid armed conflict.

Personally, I think the US is gearing up to create a situation like this before the Chinese fully surpass the US. The problem for the US is that its pivot to Asia is taking time, due to unfinished business in Europe and the Middle-East. However, this is also looking a lot like "shaping the battlefield" - ensuring all pieces are in place before the grand finale starts.

Note that if there is chaos in Eastern Europe and Iran, China would be effectively cut off from Europe, the Middle-East and Africa over land.

These things aren't coincidental.

Many powerful people in the US, really, really, really wanted to go to war with Iran, but it's simply not practical to do. — boethius

There are many speculations about Raisi's death having been an assassination. If that's the case, it follows a familiar pattern of the US sowing chaos in the Middle-East.

Iran just so happens to be a crucial link in Chinese overland access to the rest of the world.

This is true, but Europe and Russia would also anyways benefit from mutual peace. — boethius

Indeed. And Russia understands this, which is why they are trying to get a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The problem is, Europe does not.

Europe's naivety is the real risk factor here. Zero geopolitical awareness makes them irrational and a willing pawn.

And if there was no US-China war then Europe, Russia and China would benefit from the peace. — boethius

The US strategy may not be to get into a war with China, just containment and slowing China down as much as possible while the US consolidates imperial domination where it can. — boethius

Personally, I don't think the eventual war can be avoided, because the US has pressed itself right against China's doorstep where it poses an existential threat by threatening to cut off all Chinese sea trade. (Quite comparable to the situation it created vis-á-vis Russia)

So basically it has created a completely unacceptable situation for the Chinese, and any attempt by the Chinese to resolve it will result in war.

And I think you're right that if there is no war, China would surpass the United States naturally.

This is why I disagree with your view that we may be looking at the multipoles working out their new respective spheres of influence in a somewhat civilized fashion. The United States doesn't show any signs that it will respect a sphere of influence of the challenging powers.

The status quo favors the challenging powers, which is all the more reason for the former hegemon to seek to bring things to a head before it is surpassed.

What I think is driving US foreign policy in Ukraine is the following:

1. Russia and Europe are in prime position to benefit from a war between the US and China.

2. Russia and Europe will both fill a critical role for China in said war, since China will need markets it can reach over land when its sea routes are blocked. Note that conflict in Iran and Eastern Europe would seal Europe off from China entirely.

3. European populism threatens to slip Europe from Washington's grasp, turning it from a vassal into a potential rival. (In terms of potential, Europe even surpasses the US and China)


So, being the United States, what do you do?

NATO will be useless in a conflict with China, especially if the Europeans start thinking for themselves.

You look for a way to leave NATO while simultaneously getting your two rivals (Europe and Russia) to fight each other.


A hypothetical scenario (not necessarily the most likely, but just to show how easily one can imagine this escalating):

Trump becomes president, and leaves NATO. With the US ditching Europe, European war paranoia will spike - keep in mind the Ukraine war may still be going on. This creates opportunities for trickery. A false flag attack on a base or ship, an assassination of some high-profile political figure, etc.

Wars have been started over less, and it wouldn't be the first time the US fabricates a casus belli.

Of course the US doesn't intend to be involved in this conflict at all. It will be its parting gift to Europe.

Sometimes there's just a war too far. — boethius

Lets hope so.

The way I am reading Washington's behavior is that they are "shaping the battlefield" - the current Ukraine crisis isn't the grand finale. It was a tool to decouple Russia from Europe, remilitarize the region, and sow adversarial sentiment.

This creates fertile soil for conflict in the future.

With how dim-witted the Europeans are, I sense that we are one crisis away from war. Is it within the United States' power to initiate or even stage such a crisis when it suits its agenda? I believe so.

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic

And somehow it just keeps getting worse. :lol:

You would think the Poles of all people would understand the potential cost of playing games with the Russians, though when I look at their behavior I am not sure.

Haven't they, just like the Romanians, mentioned Art. 5 when supposed missile debris landed in their borders?

Now both of these countries are planning to base Ukrainian F-16s within their borders, which makes them legitimate targets. This would in effect make them direct participants in the war.

If they had no intention of getting directly involved, the US seems to have been successful in dragging them ever closer.

The thing I am increasingly worried about, is for the US to do something extreme - something that will create a crisis that takes all these nations that have positioned themselves close to the precipice and plunges them in.

That's like saying that the power of the oil lobby makes the green energy transition a problem for the US. The fact that there are lobby groups pushing an agenda in US politics doesn't make it our problem. That's just corruption. — Mr Bee

It is a problem for the US. You might call it corruption, but what the US-Israel lobby does is completely legal, and yes, many believe this state of affairs is not in the US' best interest.

If you are unaware of the workings and scope of the US-Israel lobby, I would recommend watching something like this:

That's more Israel's problem, more specifically Netanyahu's. — Mr Bee

The power of the US-Israel lobby makes it the United States' problem as well.

If the administration doesn't appease the lobby, it will get gutted in the press. Especially now, with Biden's position being extremely weak.

I'd say fears about a blowback are the reason why they're so eager for a deal. — Mr Bee

The US isn't eager for a deal.

A deal right now would mean "Hamas won", Netanyahu would be chased out of office and probably jailed. Israel will have to live with its stained reputation for the foreseeable future and it will have nothing to show for it.

Israel will not let that happen, and if the US pressures Israel into accepting such a deal Biden would be gutted in the press and his re-election chances would vanish.

The US is eager to keep up appearances, nothing more. This is what US-Israel relations have always looked like.

The US doesn't care about peace. The only thing it cares about is whether unconditional support for Israel blows back on Biden and ruins his chances at re-election.

Of course, pissing off the US-Israel lobby by pushing Israel into an undesirable peace would be another, even more effective way of ruining Biden's chances.

So all of these peace talks are just windowdressing. I'll believe it when they put a neutral country in charge of the peace process.

In my opinion, war has a tendency impose conditions on its participants. Especially when one of the most powerful nations on the planet, the United States, is pushing for it.

Furthermore, the Europeans seem utterly politically clueless, so I highly doubt Europe as a block will be able to push back on the United States' desire for chaos.

There's virtually zero risk of blowback for the Americans, as long as they can mislead the Europeans into doing the dirty work for them (in effect keeping the US out of the (nuclear) crosshairs).

What all of this tells us is that the Americans will push for chaos in Europe, because they have no reason not to. The Russians will at some point likely feel forced to react by striking NATO bases, and that will provide fuel for further escalation.

I see no reason why this should change, unless the US comes under serious threat. Until then it can simply keep pushing forward its pawns as it pleases. The only thing it needs to avoid is a general nuclear war.


PS: As I wrote this post, news hit about the Russians carrying out missile drills off the coast of Cuba. This is a clear signal that they are trying to change the situation in which there is no risk for the United States.

US says Hamas seeks changes to ceasefire plan; Hamas denies proposing new ideas


Notice the dirty game this administration is involved in:

It pretends to broker a peace deal in order to placate US progressives, only to subsequently come up with excuses, to placate Israel and the US-Israel lobby.

Is anyone still fooled by this bullshit?

This is toddler-level diplomacy. Maybe it's time for adults to take the wheel again?

While that is certainly true, if the US manages to slowly expand the state of war that already exists, it is a matter of time before Art. 5 can be claimed.

As I've been arguing for a while now, the US objective is to provoke a large-scale conflict between Europe and Russia.

The latest step in this process is the basing of F-16s in Poland and Romania, which makes the bases in these countries legitimate military targets.

This is of course what the US is hoping to provoke - a Russian attack on NATO soil, after which it can invoke NATO Art. 5 and forcefully drag Europe into the conflict.

Biden should get the same treatment, by the way.

European Commission President accused of complicity in Israel's war crimes at ICC

The Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI) filed a complaint against EU leader Ursula von der Leyen in which it stated:

Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the unconditional support of the President of the European Commission to Israel – military, economic, diplomatic and political – has enabled war crimes and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, [...] — GIPRI

Even though I think it's highly unlikely this case will lead to anything substantial, it's good to see the European hypocrites are being called out for their complicity and tacit approval.

I think people are overworked.

You can only milk the cow for so long.

I think a case could be made for a policy of non-interference, but that case falls apart when the numbers get extreme. — RogueAI

It also falls apart when the scenario is accidental / incidental and hasn't been engineered by some evil agent. — Apustimelogist

How so?

It doesn't matter whether one is asked to murder to save five, a million or the rest of the human race. There's no onus on the bystander to involve themselves.

There's no magical number at which participation becomes mandatory and murder becomes a moral deed.

I notice that in the paper the situation is portrayed as "killing one or killing five",but that would be an inaccurate representation of cause and effect. The omission of pulling the lever does not kill anyone.

The question really is, does one involve oneself by pulling the lever, thus killing one and saving five, or does one refuse to get involved (and thus omit to pull the lever).

Negligence, culpability, these are legal terms, and I think under most legal systems you would be charged with second-degree murder if you pushed some innocent bystander on the tracks, regardless of your intentions.

If you are talking about these terms in a moral sense, I think they need to be explained in more detail. When is one morally culpable? Negligence implies a failure to do a duty - what duty are we talking about here, and when can one be said to be morally negligent?

Just "Thou shalt not kill" - most people fulfill that moral obligation without even thinking about it, so that's pretty realistic, isn't it?

Not sure why you've suddenly started linking railway death statistics.