Yet to know and understand Russian policy is absolutely necessary. Ignorance about it is a weakness. Understanding what Russia has now become under Putin and where Putin has lead the country is important. — ssu

It strikes me now that this sums up nicely the issues with your responses (and to an extent @Olivier5 and the conversation I'm having with @neomac).

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..."

As if we didn't know. As if our commenting on the US was because of a lack of data on who else does that too, or who was worse...

But our commenting on the US (rather than those others) has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge about their actions - we know full well that others support Neo-Nazis, we know full well that bombing children is a bad thing to do... We're commenting on the US (rather than those others) because they are the most powerful nation on earth. Because they are our government, or allied to our governments.

It's about holding power to account in the most effective manner, not 'informing'. Informing is the job of books, papers and lecturers. Holding government to account is the job of political rabble-rousing such as a thread like this. If there's historical data to take account of, it should be to serve that purpose, yours more often than not, serves only to pour cold water on it.

Of course when it comes to Putin, he is willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers his agenda of creating more instability in the West.

Which creates ironic twists as right-wing extremists organizations that are banned for example in my country then get help from Russia. At least earlier they weren't so in bed with Russians, but times change. — ssu

One more time for the slow ones at the back...

We have no say whatsoever over Russian policy so whinging about it is nothing but empty virtue signalling.

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary.

It is not about balance, we don't need to discover who's worst and condemn them most.

We discover what our governments, our allies, are doing wrong and hold them to account for it.

A person being bombed by Russian despotism could view things this way, I guess. — Olivier5

They could. But no one writing on this thread is being bombed by Russian despotism, so that's irrelevant. Both your comment and mine were directed at the non-bombed.

But, still, feel free to reply with another totally irrelevant bit of virtue signalling, we haven't yet had the glaring light of your pure virtue burnt fully into our retinas. Do please remind us one more time, is bombing children bad?

now people are eager to forget and to come back to simple solutions. — Olivier5

Imagine that. Anyone thinking solutions are so simple. Like thinking it's either full out war or Russian despotism. What kind of an idiot would be so simple as to think those were the only two options?

Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly — neomac

So how does this 'fact' link to the morality of fighting for one's nation? Lots of people value money too. Does that make fighting over money moral?

how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people? — neomac

I didn't say they realised or agreed, I just said they had more in common with each other than their rulers and bosses.

Oppression is one, not the only element that I would take into consideration for moral assessment. Indeed “oppression” is a word with a moral connotation but I don’t take it to be necessarily negative, so its moral implications depend on the context: e.g. oppressing the Nazis, Isis, communist terrorists, organised crime would be morally defensible. — neomac

The word 'oppression' already covers that. What you're talking about is 'suppression'.

oppression
noun [ U ]
uk
/əˈpreʃ.ən/ us
/əˈpreʃ.ən/
oppression noun (RULE)
a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom:

But I still don't see how it ties back to the argument. We're talking about moral reasons to keep fighting. I'm arguing that simply 'defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason because the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another. Over time, even Russia's current atrocity will pale into insignificance compared to the lives cut short and ruined because of the ruling classes inhumane treatment of the poor - from whatever nation. I really don't see how you pointing out that some groups need to be suppressed bears any connection to that argument whatsoever. Are you saying the working class ought to be oppressed?

If the word “oppression” has a moral connotation, then “working class are oppressed by the elite classes” is not a factual claim but a moral claim. — neomac

That's right. There are two moral judgements right there in the definition I provided. 'Unfair' and 'cruel'. I would have thought it pretty self-evident that people swanning about in luxury yachts whilst children starve to death in their rubbish was both unfair and cruel - but if you think it's fine, then I don't think there's anything I can do do convince you otherwise.

how much responsibility bears Putin and Russian soldiers for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian children wrt Zelensky, Biden, me, what is the math you are doing based on your still clandestine multi-causal theory? That’s necessary (yet not sufficient) to estimate what the most adequate morally response is. — neomac

Why on earth would some kind of maths be necessary? Zelensky bears some moral responsibility for the deaths if he chooses to continue fighting when he could have take a less harmful other option. That's just a statement about how moral responsibility works. It doesn't require me to do any maths. If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.

Do you mean that Russian soldiers and Putin should have considered Ukrainian children’s interest before killing & bombing them? — neomac

No. The paragraph wasn't about Russian soldiers and Putin. It was about The governments of Ukraine, the US and Europe, plus their supporters.

> Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

Here, “It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed.” and “I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.” These 2 claims strongly suggest that the issue is with Zelensky government and things would be better with Putin puppet. — neomac

They don't 'strongly suggest' anything of the sort. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.

since I do not have direct access to what they want collectively, then I would take Zelensky as their chosen representative in times of peace and in times of war, until I’m proven wrong. BTW Zelensky support among Ukrainians is confirmed to me by some good feedback from expat Ukrainian friends and foreign reporters on the ground”. — neomac

So the elected leader of a country is assumed right about the values of that country until proven wrong? Do you apply that to your own country? Was President Trump, for example, right about the values of Americans simply by virtue of being their elected leader? What about the values of those who can't vote - children, the future generations - do they get a say?

> So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much. — neomac

That doesn't follow at all. Two parties could trust each other 100% and still not reach agreement on the deal because neither side thinks they have the concession they were looking for. It need have nothing to do with trust.

> America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

What are the reasons you have to support America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia? What do you expect them to do? — neomac

They are parties to the war. Negotiations generally include all parties. What I expect them to do is to offer concessions and make demands in the same way any party to a negotiation would.

> So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

When I’m talking about moral reasons to act, I’m not talking about someone’s intentions to act according to those reasons, as you did in your example. So you simply misunderstood what I was saying. Concerning intentions I already made my point so you can address it, if you wish so. — neomac

Doesn't answer the question. I asked "Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?" [with regard to the supply of weapons] and you replied "That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help" If America's intention in supplying weapons is to make a profit, then one cannot say their help is moral, even if their action accidentally assists a moral cause.

If and when a form of dominance increases the chances of refilling my belly more than having my head decapitated, that’s something I would personally take into account, also for morally establishing what is the lesser evil in the given circumstances. — neomac

Really? So your personal satiation determines what's moral? That's certainly an odd notion of morality. What about the effect on others?

My example that you extrapolated from its context, was simply meant to address your preposterous moral claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. And you never addressed it as such. So once again, if you were to choose only about these 2 options, would you prefer to be dominated by Isis or America? And between Russia and America? — neomac

America over Isis. America over Russia. Now, those are not the only choices, what on earth have they got to do with the question of whether fighting over nationality is moral?

Moral force should be assessed based on what people actually value. — neomac

Second time you've made this odd claim. People value money, so fighting over money is moral?

if Putin and Russian soldiers kill Ukrainians are immoral, if Ukrainians kill Russian invaders and murderers are moral. — neomac

Agreed. But we were talking about the US, so I don't see the relevance. Western capitalist systems kill and immiserate millions of innocent people. Russian wars kill and immiserate millions of people. Ending one by invoking the other neither helps nor has any moral force. You seemed to think it did, I'm enquiring about that.

> I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

This is one thing they demand, not the only one though. — neomac

No. I'm sure the current Russian demands don't constitute the full sum of all they'd want either. The point is, they started the war, so it's just self-evident, they'd have a different list of grievances

> Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds?

Would stopping sanctions oppose Putins’ power consolidation more than preserving them for a good while or making them even stronger? Or would Putin be more ready to significantly soften his demands before we removed those sanctions? — neomac

That's not the question. The question was a moral one. If Putin's power consolidation was increased bu sanction and NATO involvement in the war, then ought we avoid those things?

> There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Agreed, but that has to do with geopolitical risk assessment that all great power politics must face in similar daring circumstances. And undoubtedly Western & Ukrainian leaders are not assuming anything for granted. However the situation looks to me much worse now, since Putin and China (as Putin and Xi Jinping talked about new world order) could take any concessions as a sign of weakness. — neomac

Right. So as far as the moral case is concerned, you concede the point that continuing to fight is not morally advised simply on the grounds of 'opposing Putin's expansionism' since it is a moot point what course of action would best do that. You agree then that I could very well be determinedly opposed to Putin's expansionism and yet advocate ending the war right now and agreeing to the terms on the table since it's perfectly possible to consider that course of action to be the one which will most effectively bring about an end to that expansionism?

> You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

If we are talking about Great Power politics, the only pertinent sense of opposition is how geopolitically meaningful such an opposition is. And, once again, to assess opposing strategies one should consider the views and demands of all competing powers, not the views and demands as framed by only one power, as you did. — neomac

You've no idea whose views and demands I considered, since consideration goes on in my head. I only told you the course of action I thought best. Since you've agreed that it's complex and not easy to judge which course of action will bring about an end to Putin's power and which will consolidate it further, you can't possibly say, simply from the course of action I advocate, whose views and demands I've taken into account.

> What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

I’m not sure. — neomac

Right. So If I think their standard of living will be considerably worse, then It's a reasonable position to take that involving the US is not worth the benefit.

our capacity to provide a strategic analysis about Great Power politics is constrained by our non-expert understanding of a limited, second-hand and uncertain amount of available evidences. So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge. In other words, on my side there isn’t much intellectual commitment you could challenge wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help”, while on your side I don’t see much compelling strategic insights wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help” to challenge what I understood about the stakes so far. That’s why I limited myself to support some moral claims (like a “carrot&stick” containment strategy by Western leaders was morally more defensible than a “murder&destroy” strategy by Putin or the continuation of this war is morally defensible depending on what Ukrainians and Westerners value) wrt all strategic understanding I could intellectually afford. — neomac

So you choose your "experts and leaders" randomly? Of course, when faced with situations where the consequences cannot be predicted by laymen, we cannot ourselves make judgements about what course of action will lead to what outcome, but we can judge who to trust, based on matter we are qualified to judge (such as intentions, trustworthiness, past record) matter that are either clear or for which there's no body of knowledge we can call on to for determination.

So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government? If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?

So you are saying that Palestinians should accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? The Talibans didn’t accept any “de facto” Afghan puppet government and took back their control over Afghanistan eventually. The expression "whatever it takes” simply refers to the fact that, in geopolitical strategy, demands and options are not assessed by one party the way their competitor frame them as I said repeatedly. — neomac

No. That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the actual terms matter. It's not just a question of 'capitulate to any demands to avoid war', it's 'avoid the worst option'.

Concerning the question “if torture would stop Putin's expansionism could be morally defensible?” my answer is yes, if for example we are talking about torturing Putin. — neomac

So some methods are not acceptable? How about the continued exposure of millions of innocent children to Russian atrocities? Is that not an unacceptable method for you?

> The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

I’m not bracketing anything out. This is a proper starting point to morally reason about this war as I already argued. And will always start from there when questioning your preposterous moral claims about this war. — neomac

Go on then. Let's hear how you take US and European strategies into account.

So...

Russia’s currency jumped as much as 7.3% on Thursday, sealing its rebound from a collapse that followed the nation’s invasion of Ukraine and sanctions that isolated it from the global financial system. A key driver of the latest gains is the continued demand for Russia’s oil and gas in Europe and elsewhere, handing the country almost $1 billion a day in revenue. — Bloomberg

Meanwhile...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-facing-rationing-as-ukraine-war-hits-food-and-energy-supplies-hj52jrx6x

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/food-shortage-warning-as-fertiliser-rationed-7bd8jg8gz


Those sanctions really hitting home...

...sorry, who was the target again?

Peasant cottage. During fuedalism, either owned or permanently rented by the peasant...

Today...



Asking price - Half a milion.

And where have I denounced or denied NATO enlargement being one reason for Putin's actions? Quote me — ssu

Well there's...

NATO enlargement is simply a side issue here, one thing that Putin extensively uses as a pretext for his imperialistic ambitions. Which, of course when it comes to Russia, are "defensive".

The real issue here is that Russia with Putin at it's helm didn't understand that the Russian Empire was over. — ssu

Or there's

this just shows how illogical and wrong it is to believe the fig-leaf of NATO expansion being the reason for this invasion. — ssu

...but that's not the point. The point is, I haven't just claimed you did denounce NATO as a motive.

Whereas you said of me...

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war? — ssu

There's no 'moving on' this is what the whole discussion has been about from the start. These ridiculous attempts to shut down discussing the culpability of the US by constantly framing those that do as 'obsessed' or 'conspiracy theorist' or whatever, just for mentioning it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014

“It doesn’t have to be solid intelligence,” one U.S. official said. “It’s more important to get out ahead of them [the Russians], Putin specifically, before they do something."

Multiple U.S. officials acknowledged that the U.S. has used information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the information wasn’t high. Sometimes it has used low-confidence intelligence for deterrent effect, as with chemical agents, and other times, as an official put it, the U.S. is just “trying to get inside Putin’s head.”

In another disclosure, U.S. officials said one reason not to provide Ukraine with MiG fighter jets is that intelligence showed Russia would view the move as escalatory.

That was true, but it was also true of Stinger missiles, which the Biden administration did provide, two U.S. officials said, adding that the administration declassified the MiG information to bolster the argument not to provide them to Ukraine.

And most shockingly...

It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: U.S. officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine.

President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.

...But sure, we can completely trust the information western media sources report. It's not at all a load of propagandist bullshit.

What the hell is wrong with things having multiple causes?

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war? — ssu

Where have I denounced those other reasons? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient.

What they say what their policies and objectives are doesn't matter.

Yeah, right. — ssu

over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.

Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.

Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people

In this context [all the above], in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation. — Putin

You just ignore what leaders say when it doesn't suit your narrative and then expect people to listen to you quoting them when it does. It's become a joke.

If you want to be taken seriously, decide if the stated goals and objectives of leaders are relevant or not and stick to it. Otherwise there's no reason to even quote them.

All I am saying is that you guys seem to be parroting the US extreme right. That's objective and verifiable, it's not an opinion. — Olivier5

OK.

parrot
verb [ T ]
disapproving
uk
/ˈpær.ət/ us
/ˈper.ət/
to repeat exactly what someone else says, without understanding it or thinking about its meaning:

Verify it then...

if the arguments have been countered over and over, — Christoffer

If we all agreed that the arguments had been countered over and over then we wouldn't still be arguing them would we? So you're just begging the question. Olivier's remarks are a guilt by association fallacy for those of us who don't agree that those arguments have been countered over and over. Those who agree those arguments have been countered over and over need no further encouragement to dismiss them.

So the only people @Olivier5's comments could possibly be aimed at are people who don't yet agree that those arguments have been countered over and over. Hence they are a guilt by association fallacy.

See how pedagogy is failing? I'll repeat again. Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same thing as something actually being the case.

I suspect you are Tucker Carlson, so the difference is moot. — Baden

Who does that leave as Taylor Greene? I think I got off lightly there.

QED — Baden

Yes. But is @Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius!

epistemic responsibility — Christoffer

Funny how the advocates of 'epistemic responsibility' are always the most dogmatic about their own beliefs. We've heard the notion before on this very site. It translates roughly as "reach the same conclusion I reach!"

I'm vaguely reminded of ... — jorndoe

I'm not surprised. Most here seem to think this crisis is an episode of Star Wars.

This should be obvious... — ssu

More of that agree with ssu common sense we've been hearing about I suppose? Funny how you seem to be so utterly unfailing in your application of this universal human trait, yet dozens of expert foreign policy advisors, Security chiefs and military experts seem to not see what is so ssu's opinion obvious.

There is an anthropological fact ... Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. — neomac

That's not an anthropological fact, it's an anthropological theory.

> The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Common in what sense? What are the evidences to support your claim? — neomac

So now I'm to provide 'evidence' yet you get to simply declare things to be 'anthropological fact' without a shred of it? Why the double standard?

As to the first question. What they have in common is oppression. Something I though you were all in favour of fighting against. It is an economic fact that the working class are oppressed by the elite classes, but apparently, that oppression doesn't qualify for you support. Not enough 'anthropological facts' behind it perhaps?

to talk about responsibility you need agency. And with your analysis you should still prove Zelensky’s responsibility from “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers” and not from “Ukrainian children die”, if you want to make sense to me. — neomac

It's pretty simple. If someone orders (or even supports) continued fighting, they bear some moral responsibility for all the foreseeable consequences of that decision. One of the foreseeable consequences is that more Ukrainian children will die. I don't understand what's so hard about that.

Children don’t get a saying in anything because they are children. — neomac

Not getting a literal 'say' is not the same as not having their interests considered.

So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone — neomac

What? Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian... — neomac

Are you serious? Your evidence for you taking Ukrainian values into account and me not is that you've thought about what you would do if you were a Ukrainian? Do you not realise how ludicrous that sounds?

There are unavoidable evidences and compelling reasons for mistrust. — neomac

Yes. I know. As there are in every single negotiation ever. So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

> I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

OK what do you mean by “support”? Show me how you would apply it to your position. — neomac

America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

> Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question.
> Does a supply of weapons help?

Well Zelensky is asking for military assistance to the West, and the West is supplying it. And it’s primarily up to the Ukrainians to assess if they get enough help. — neomac

You've not answered the question. Does supplying weapons help?

> Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?

That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help — neomac

So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

> You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars).

Quote where I said that. Or show me how you could possibly infer such a claim from what I said. — neomac

from a more concrete and personal point of view there is a big difference in how this influence is deployed: e.g. Isis might want to put their flag in our decapitated head, while the US might want to put their flag on the sandwich we are eating. Do you see the difference? Because if you don’t, I do and I value it. — neomac

I took that to be a claim that you value the economic dominance of the US over the territorial dominance of ISIS (a more extreme example you used in our discussion about Russian tactics).

Bombing hospitals, civilians and children is not morally defensible, giving stingers and javelins to Ukrainians that want to continue to fight against Russia also with stingers and javelins is morally defensible. — neomac

Why? If not the death and destruction these actions cause, then what is the moral force?

I was referring only to these parts: — neomac

The parts that support your statement - not the parts that don't. Cherry-picking, in other words.

If we are talking about a negotiation between 2 parties, a third strategy that is opposing both should take into account what both parties demand, which you didn’t. — neomac

I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

since accepting Putin’s demands (as they are) will empower Putin, then there would be more risks against the West, this is what needs to be opposed. — neomac

Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds? You seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action. There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Your method to decide which expansionism to support is based on counting deaths, directly or indirectly provoked by expansionist activities (whatever they are). So since the US has indirectly provoked more deaths in Yemen than Russia has directly provoked in Ukraine, then we should side with Russia.
If that is in short your line of reasoning, then let me stress once more that, from your own way of framing things, you are not opposing 2 expansionisms, you are supporting Russian expansionism — neomac

You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

I don’t even get why your moral assessment of competing great powers should be limited to the number deaths or misery provoked in proxy wars and not also in the standard of life and prosperity within their established sphere of influence. Why aren’t these metrics worth taking into account for moral considerations? — neomac

I think they are. What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

If expansionism is a causal reaction to threats, since there are always direct and indirect multi-causal links between competing powers’ perceived security threats and reactions then all powers in competition are potentially causally accountable of not some but all current deaths provoked by power struggles, so there is no reason to side with one or the other based on death counts. You could still claim that it's not matter of taking side anyways, just matter of supporting whatever it takes to end the war in the shortest term, but then would you support as well Palestinians submitting to whatever Israeli demands are and Yemeni submitting to whatever Saudi Arabian demands to end hostilities as soon as possible? — neomac

Why would I ignore what the terms are? I've never even mentioned "whatever it takes". The terms here just so happen to be the de facto state of affairs. fighting over them is a waste of human life. Fighting over other terms might not be as they may be more immiserating than the war.

> Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

So what? — neomac

What kind of answer is that. It was a simple question. Do we have free reign to oppose Putin's expansionism by any means possible. IF torture would stop Putin's expansionism could we torture? If not, then the moral opposition becomes irrelevant whilst we're discussing methods, because the morality of the method is primary.

> Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?

Nowhere obviously, because I’m talking about the war between Ukraine and Russia. — neomac

The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

I think COPD is a bigger killer than lung cancer isn't it? — frank

I think you're right. That significantly ups the death count. Although I think the point was that they knew about the link to cancer but ignored it. Hence the inclusion in genocide.

Although any government who knows about the link between pm10s and lower life expectancy, but fails to act accordingly...?

Depends how deliberate the act needs to be I suppose. I take BATs ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco to be pretty deliberate, especially as they also knew cigarettes were addictive.

Now, fast food companies....

British American Tobacco?

Knowingly killed more people than any other single entity in the time between them knowing cigarettes caused lung cancer and them telling anyone. Apparently.

sources and elaborations — Christoffer

So what do suppose happens now? In your mind, how did this play out? I say "you got me, I just made all that up, I don't have any sources at all". Is that where you saw this going? I just want to know what you think is going on here.

So far I've got a disgruntled professor, venting at being ignored by the world, waits patiently for 170 pages just hoping, in a topic on Ukraine (for some reason), someone will bring up his pet theory, so he can...what? I get lost there in your plotline. The disgruntled professor gets what? Did he forget Google scholar existed? Was he hoping you didn't know about it? What happens next?

You put a tremendous amount of effort into presenting an opposing case in something you've clearly no expertise in (else you wouldn't have needed the Google search), to someone you still (remarkably) believe is an expert in that field. How did you think that was going to go?

Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever — Christoffer

OK.

p1] Critical thinking is not a method of thought [p2] which isn't needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies don't develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, doesn't have a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies doesn't require external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one need not know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking isn't required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link. — ssu

I'm talking about the link between calls for Ukraine to 'keep fighting' and US arms sales (not to mention 'reconstruction' loans and the like)

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc. — ssu

Regardless of the reliability of the estimates, vim wondering why, after all that's been said, you'd think an argument based only on casualty figures would hold any water.

We've been talking for pages and pages about how the US and Europe's approach is far more economic than territorial, so the arguments against them are about the economic impacts.

In this case, you'd be measuring not just collateral damage, but damage from arms sales, regime support, economic sanctions, pecuniary loan terms, welfare cuts, resource theft, unfair trade deals...

I'm not saying how those figures would play out. Russia engages in no small amount of all that thuggery too. My point is that its no secret that 'the west' is the more sophisticated murderer. Comparing collateral damage in war is like comparing a violent criminal to a fraudster. The method by which they kill lends emotional, not rational weight to their crimes.

I point to the fact that the Russian way of war ended up killing far more civilians than the West — ssu

How are you measuring that?

one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy and most obvious lies. — ssu

Yes, we get what you're saying. What's lacking is an argument. If you say "it's common sense that X is the case" and I say "its common sense that X isn't the case", then how has you're assertion that we can use common sense to determine whether X is the case, been shown to be anything other than false?

Then make the revelant link by all means. — ssu

I have been doing so.

I made the the link that the decision for Saudi-Arabia to intervene in the Yemen Civil War was as stupid and disastrous as the idea for Russia to invade Ukraine. — ssu

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect.

The point is that you can use common sense. It's not all that blurry and utterly confusing that you cannot make sense of it. — ssu

I'm just baffled that you don't get this. Do you really not understand the difference between something seeming to you to be the case and something actually being the case?

It doesn't seem all that blurry to you. It seems to make sense to you.

Other people obviously disagree otherwise there wouldn't be any dispute.

If you want to make the argument that "X is the case". "It seems obvious that X is the case" is not evidence in favour of your argument, it's just a restatement of it.

If you want to show that some photo proves "X is the case", you need to provide more than just "this photo seems to me to show that X is the case", we know that. That's presumably why you presented it. What we don't know is why.

I don't understand what your opposition to that is. — ssu

You're complaining that discussion of the US involvement in Yemen, or Ethiopia is off topic because the thread is about Ukraine. It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant.

Also relevant is the response of people to the Ukrainian crisis, the analysis of which involves a comparison to that of other crises.

What's not relevant (to a discussion forum) are endless posts simply pointing out how bad things are, or that stuff has happened. The former is a matter for your therapist, the latter for a news service.

In a thread about Ukraine, the counterargument seems to but everything else than what is happening in Ukraine. — ssu

We're not a news service and we're not anyone's personal blog, nor are we your therapist. This is a discussion forum. It's for discussion.

So a thread on Ukraine should expect discussion about the situation in Ukraine. A situation which involves Russia, the US, Europe... The history, authenticity, moral integrity and intentions of all the actors in the current crisis are relevant to the discussion.

If you want to read up on the news or let everyone know how upset you are, I strongly suggest you use the appropriate institutions specialising in those services.

It is Putin who is saying that those forces in the picture are Crimean volunteers. — ssu

Yes. And it is western media who are presenting that picture saying "look at how much of a liar Putin is". Both are acts of propaganda so we would fully expect both representations to appear to show exactly what they're meant to show.

You present me a picture backing up your claim that Putin is lying about Crimea, then of course it's going to appear to show exactly that. If it didn't, you wouldn't have used it.

All I'm saying is that because of the nature of persuasive imagery, the fact that it appears to show X is not an additional piece of support for it. It was chosen entirely because it appeared to show X. The investigation is into whether it actually does show X. This involves context.

stick really to the example: the pictures of those soldiers were said to be Crimean volunteers by Russia. — ssu

You gave me one picture. If you want me to comment on the " massive amount" of similar pictures you'll have to post them. Of course, corroborating evidence is one of the things a further investigation would look for. You were talking about a single image.

you can use your own judgement. Some of the most blatant lies are so obvious. — ssu

Obvious to you. Not so to others, and it's the disagreement between you and those others we're talking about here.

If you say "it's obvious that X", and your interlocutor say " it's obvious that not-X", you can't use the fact that you find X obvious as an argument supporting your position, that's just a restatement of your position, not an argument in favour of it.

Do these look like volunteers that have lived in Crimea and have taken up arms against Ukraine after the Maidan revolution? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers? — ssu

They appear to be Russian soldiers. Because they're meant to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point of the propaganda image.

Propaganda is something which is presented to appear to be one thing, when it is, in fact, another.

So the fact that they appear to be Russian soldiers is entirely irrelevant. We already know they're going to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point. We're trying to establish if they actually are Russian soldiers.

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it — Christoffer

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them.

Interesting, that would mean you're pretty bad at your job since you believe a hell of a lot that you won't elaborate or support in any way, and you should definitely understand that knowledge, or rather beliefs passed down from parents to children is a core part of the social construction of how beliefs manifest and no way near the kind of knowledge that can help people break free from indoctrination and propaganda in a culture. — Christoffer

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why?

You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy — Christoffer

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking. But I'm talking about your response to that fact (which you asked me, by the way. I didn't offer it as an ad verecundiam - you asked me about my qualifications). If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!". The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...". You, however, haven't even broken stride.

nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in. — Christoffer

How would you know? That would require you to simultaneously believe that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology, and yet you know that body of knowledge better than I do. Even if you too were a professor of Psychology (or perhaps something like Education, maybe) then the best you could claim is that you have as good a grasp as I do of that canon. Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know. It would be far less odd to simply claim I'm lying about being a professor. Honestly, I would have been far less intrigued by your response if you'd have just said "No you're not". You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject.

do you have a valid or reasonable argument? — Christoffer

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching. I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity.

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people? — Christoffer

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth. — Christoffer

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that.

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then? — Christoffer

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance.

Yes, that can be true with educated parents of nations with less corruption or state-controlled information. But religious and authoritarian societies are very much existing in a lot of places in the world and that's when this type of method falls flat and becomes indoctrination through tradition. Five generations of people living inside the truth of an authoritarian regime does not learn to question anything if all their knowledge comes from parents already indoctrinated. It becomes a feedback loop for them, with no keys to break out of that loop. — Christoffer

I agree. Certainly in early industrial and agricultural societies, as well as in religious communities, education is a form of indoctrination. I've already said this. But it's exactly the same with schools in those communities too. The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac


One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first. — Christoffer

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage?

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right — Christoffer

Yeah. Right.

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system.

Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be. — Christoffer

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them.

regarding your opposition to formal education, aren't there a lot of studies showing how important it is for kids to get out of their homes and interact with other people as well as other perspectives than their own or what they've learned at home? — Christoffer

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms.

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own? — Christoffer

Yes and yes.

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air? — Christoffer

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion. — Christoffer

According to whom?

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves? — Christoffer

No. Not once.

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west — Christoffer

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention.

You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac


Because you are a professor? — Christoffer

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense? — Christoffer

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong. — Christoffer

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you.

None of this has any real arguments behind them, but you are a professor, so therefore your authority as such a professor makes your arguments correct. — Christoffer

You asked me, remember?

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions. — Christoffer

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but your conclusions are not supported by sufficient evidence to be so strongly held as you hold them. It's quite normal for expertise to be used this way (again, assuming you believe me) - even if you too are an expert. It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree.

And now you call everyone else "laymen". — Christoffer

No. In terms of solutions to the Ukraine Crisis, I too am a layman. That's why I'm not interested in offering solutions either. I'm interested in people's support for different solution already offered by experts (including my own support for the solutions I think are best).

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor — Christoffer

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were.

And you don't see an obvious lie when it's presented? — ssu

Wow. You're going with "It looks like a lie to me, therefore it must be one". Because you're infallible? I don't know if you've come across propaganda before, but the idea is make it look like one thing when it's in fact another. The key pert, for our purposes here, being thatit will look like one thing. So if you just take everything to be the way it looks to be, then you'll fall for every single propaganda piece presented to you.

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America? — RogueAI

Because it's the only place America hasn't yet turned into a warzone?

a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

This is interesting. What is the mechanism you propose by which this prevention is achieved?

Here's an interview with Yanis Varoufakis. He's saying much the same things as we're saying here. The point I want you to note is the first part

Back in 2001, I labelled Vladimir Putin a war criminal because of the murder of 250,000 people in Grozny, Chechnya. It was in a Senate meeting of the University of Athens, which was discussing the motion for awarding an honorary doctorate to Putin, who had just become president of Russia. And I was in a minority of one opposing it.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/ukraine-cannot-win-this-war/

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin"

And?

https://odysee.com/@Orf:b/hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinfo:b

Or

https://odysee.com/@Orf:b/lab-leak-conspiracy-theory-mashup:4

Both sides lie. So why believe one and not the other?

Yet if one side tells the truth in favorable terms and the other side fabricates an utter lie, is then the best thing to look for the truth in the middle? — ssu

I don't understand this proposition at all. If you already know the 'truth' (such that you know one side tells the truth and the other lies) then why would you "look for the truth" at all? You already know it.

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for. — Christoffer

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all.

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking? — Isaac


What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer

I had said that if specialist equipment were required then one could understand a more developed country obtaining some knowledge derived from it. You countered with "what about critical thinking!" I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out.

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument. — Christoffer

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case.

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking. — Christoffer

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs.

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals. — Christoffer

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem?

The same goes for critical thinking. — Christoffer

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education.

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms. — Christoffer

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least.

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids. — Christoffer

Yes, that's right.

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems. — Christoffer

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions.

It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture. — Christoffer

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this?

what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know. — Christoffer

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing.

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world. — Christoffer

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males.

Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation? — Christoffer

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials - two things denied them in most early agricultural and developing industrial economies.

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer. — Christoffer

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter.

if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn. — Christoffer

It's not about alternatives. It's about you learning that, contrary to your strongly held assumptions, logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought. What prevents their use is largely scarcity - being hungry, poor, stressed... Remove those and you will have people able to think critically without having to teach them anything.

that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages. — Christoffer

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments?

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice. — Christoffer

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact.

Elaborate on the disagreement. — Christoffer

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine.

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things — Christoffer

There's no evidence for this at all.

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them... — Christoffer

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture.

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education? — Christoffer

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged. Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong. To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions. You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong.

you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia, — Christoffer

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged.