I guess with enough time we all trace back to Africa — ssu

:up: We're all African apes. If someone discriminates personally prejudicially by shoe size, place of birth, freckle count, melanin pigmentation, or some such, then they're a racist (and that's meant as an insult).

Circus.

House conservatives prep plans to impeach Biden (The Hill; Aug 30, 2022)

Should we expect impeachment of ≈ every president onwards? Future statistics going by least impeachments? Hopefully not.

Yeah, @baker, what's with the Russophobia in Ukraine anyway?

, more realistically, Putin is out to grab as much of Ukraine as feasible.
Limiting factors include military resistance, domestic politics, resources, international responses, ...
The Feb 24 attempt on Kyiv failed, but Putin has time.
A moving target (likely).

Doubtful there's any explicit or particular goal to destroy Ukrainian culture.
More like the usual propaganda, Russification, doing away with resistance as needed.
Another (likely) moving target.

I'm sure he has Kremlin advisers, spies, strategists, generals, and such sweating, maybe running scenarios + contingencies or whatever.
A cynical chess game, control, incidentally bombing Ukrainians?

Valentina Matviyenko is the head of Saint Petersburg and chair of the Federal Council of Russia.

We believe in Russia (Jun 10, 2022; in Russian)

Russia has developed over the centuries as a multinational entity, where all world religions freely coexisted. Our people are one of the few who show concern not only for their own welfare, but also for the welfare of all people, humanity as a whole.

:brow:

In fact, Russia is fighting the notorious collective West, defending its very existence as a country, a people, a civilization.

We must constantly remember that Russophobia in Europe has deep roots. And what is happening today is not a sudden, short-term episode, but a constant component of the social and political life of the West.

That's odd. Sure, there was Sovietphobia in most or many places. After that, things changed, there was optimism, friendships, seeking trust. 2-3 decades ago, something like that, I personally know people that went to Russia, business and otherwise. But now, ironically, Putin and compadres stomped that out good and well. To the extent it's real, Matviyenko's "Russophobia" was/is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Except, who has been wanting Russia to cease existing...? Will she be able to sell the persecution complex (or fear) to the Russian people (while Putin possibly creates a Ukraine of Russohaters)...?

In recent months, information, propaganda, psychological pressure on us has increased many times over. But attempts to erode the cohesion of Russian society, and even split it, to undermine the confidence of citizens in the authorities, as we see, have failed. This is convincingly evidenced by the social and political stability in the country, the high ratings of citizens' trust in President Vladimir Putin, and the approval of his activities.

A bit of irony and a bit of deceit/lying here. (Not going to keep repeating what's been posted.)

We are fighting on two fronts. On the one hand, with the ideas that the West seeks to introduce into the minds of Russian citizens, primarily young people. On the other hand, with neo-Nazism in its current, Ukrainian guise. The state and society simply cannot fail to respond to these challenges.

Right, the evil westerners are more or less accepting homosexuals, democracy, freedom of press, individual rights, ... And the Russian state must put a stop to that at home. The deNazification thing is a ruse, hypocrisy (be it the call for nationalism, actions taken, not looking in the backyard or at the employees, oppression of other voices, moves toward systematic indoctrination, or whatever), an excuse, a means to "collect the troops", another common enemy.

As you know, the Russian Constitution prohibits the recognition of any ideology as mandatory, but it does not prevent certain ideas from being perceived as basic, fundamental.

This request is answered by the adopted law, introduced by President Vladimir Putin, which fixed the establishment of a sense of patriotism and citizenship in the minds of people as the goals of education. I would also note the initiative to create a new all-Russian movement for children and youth, the proposal of the Ministry of Education to teach history in schools from the first grade.
I believe that some steps in this direction are overdue in higher education. In particular, it is worth thinking about updating the programs of the humanities studied at universities.

So, a sketchy justification for an authoritarian Russia, and a call for nationalism.

An exercise in propaganda, and (some) people will lap it up. Nothing new to see here.

Matviyenko did some good things for Saint Petersburg. What happened?

If Russia stops fighting there will be no more war. If Ukrainians stop fighting there will be no more Ukraine. — GA: Ukraine (Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Denmark · Feb 28, 2022)

(don't know the origin, allegedly a protester's sign)

As mentioned before in the thread, this does put a liability/accountability/onus on Putin.

Igor Mangushev is a psychosociopath or whatever the right term is. I guess they tend to come out of the woodwork when the opportunity arises.

Video Shows Russian Fighter With Ukrainian Skull, Says He'll Make a Goblet (Newsweek; Aug 28, 2022)

The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean? — Yohan

Don't think that quite captures it. (Unless you're using the word in an unusually broad sense?)
Check examples; science has also done away with bloodletting and phlogiston ...

Keep an eye on this guy.

DeSantis Suspends 4 Elected School Board Members After Report on Parkland (Aug 26, 2022)

Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator — Banno

*gah* A couple links over, polls suggest DeSantis is up-and-coming

The rise of sentiments like those of ...

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nick Fuentes, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Wendy Rogers, Kandiss Taylor, Rod Dreher, Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, Ron DeSantis

seem like a symptom of societal decline to me. "Clear the brain-fog, US voters."

(my emphasis)

Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof

But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work. — A Christian Philosophy

But then the methodologies are sort of self-verifying because of successful models. The success stories are the evidence. Otherwise the methodologies (and science) would have been thrown out.

Scientific methodologies, being evidence-driven, consist of (provisional, tentative) models converging on accumulating domain-specific evidence/observations. The methodologies are activities, observations, evidence collection, experiments, protocols being run, all that. A reasonably stable, falsifiable model could be promoted to a theory.

The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes. Presumably you're using some while posting here (near-realtime worldwide communication over the Internet using complex electronic devices, electricity in your home). Other examples could be GPS helping us navigate (also uses relativity), cholera control, clean water, exploring Mars with rovers, fair treatments of schizophrenia, the insulin story (type 1 diabetes no longer a death sentence), helping paralysed to talk and move, ... Such like can serve as evidence justifying the methodologies (technically not proof), or they'd been ditched. Science works.

Anyway, I'd say philosophy spawned science, after it had grown substantially, but that goes way back.

Peripheral to the thread, about ambitions and moves (and pushing it or gambling perhaps) ...

^{• Russia extends its claim to the Arctic Ocean seabed (Apr 4, 2021)
• Satellite images show huge Russian military buildup in the Arctic (Apr 5, 2021)
• Russia wants more of the Arctic seabed — right up to Canada's 200 km offshore zone (Apr 12, 2021)
• What is behind Russia’s interest in a warming Arctic? (Mar 28, 2022)}

Back further south ...

^{• Russia is disappearing vast numbers of Ukrainians (The Economist; Jul 7, 2022)}

Sinister, but not unheard of :/

Had a chance to glance over that "World Climate Declaration", only verified a couple of the undersigned.
( or whoever knows climate stuff well)

Their justification is more or less ...

There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO₂ is beneficial.

CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO₂ is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO₂ in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO₂ policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
— THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY (Jun 27, 2022)

"Don't Panic" and letting science speak with minimal bias. :up:

The "no evidence" claim seems a bit sketchy. (I'm not up to date on the latest, though.)

As far as climate models go, the scientists do the best they can; declaring that known limitations means no effect or no concern would be a non sequitur.

The "CO₂" and "adaptation" comments seem to confirm anthropogenic climate effects (otherwise somewhat or partially irrelevant, the exercise isn't just to provide breathing air for plants).

From there to declaring "There is no climate emergency" isn't quite justified, premature, well, unless the real message is "Don't Panic".

Think we can burn millions of years of accumulated fossil fuels in a century or two without noticeable effects? :down: ^{• What are fossil fuels? (Jul 2010), • If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change? (Jul 2017), • Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit? (Jun 2020), • Burning of fossil fuels (Mar 2022), • The Causes of Climate Change (Jul 2022)}

Is there reason for concern? Yes.
There are other parts of the equation, like deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, biodiversity, population growth, renewability, ...
Weigh best- and worst-case scenarios?
Assess appropriate adaptation and mitigation efforts?

Scrolled by:

World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency (Global Climate Intelligence Group; Jun 27, 2022)

Haven't had a chance to go over it though.
Anyone?

Another aspect of the war ... via UNICEF

Over half of Ukraine's children are now refugees or fleeing (some more or less kidnapped), with no light at the end of the Ukrainian tunnel.

As seen before, a generation could be lost, while Putin's machinations bomb away, allegedly to deNazify and/or out of fear of NATO.

The right thing to do in the immediate term would be for Putin to turn the volume down, simple as that.

So far, UNICEF et al arranged for schooling/education for some 600,000 children having fled Ukraine.

"Look what you caused, Putin."

Russian-speakers in Latvia told to pick sides in test of patriotism (Aug 19, 2022)

^{(by the way, I don't think such draconic measures would fly in the places I call home, then again, Latvia borders Russia and has lots of Russian-speakers)}

Setting the distance/durability problems aside, I guess we'd better discover them before they discover us.

Civil war...we can only hope. — Merkwurdichliebe

You're hoping for civil war?

Unintended fireworks ...

, I don't think people generally think of Putin as mad insane.
At least, outside of the usual (sociopathic) authoritarian strategizing/manipulation.
Anyway, so, what's the simplest coherent explanation? (Or a coherent simpler explanation?)
Attempting to push Russia up the food chain?




"Russians and Ukrainians are one people" signs being put up in Kherson (Aug 18, 2022)

... both echoing and contradicting what Putin has said previously.

Also have to take freedom/presence of press/observers into account.

Most Hageman voters believe 2020 election was illegitimate, UW poll shows (Aug 15, 2022)

Sure hope that's not how she got more votes than Cheney.

:D Circus

These candidates lost badly, but now are claiming fraud
Stephen Fowler
NPR
Jul 2, 2022

I want y'all to know that I do not concede. I do not. And if the people who did this and cheated are watching, I do not concede. — Kandiss Taylor (Jun 4, 2022)

We didn't lose. We just found more fraud. — Tina Peters

It is impossible for me to concede under these circumstances. I owe it to my supporters. I owe it to all Nevadans of all parties to ensure that every legal vote is counted legitimately. — Joey Gilbert

... — Harrison Musselwhite, Lauren Martel

My vote to just remain a no isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts, it's only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that's all I need. — Couy Griffin (Jun 17, 2022)

Trumpeople.

, couldn't you just make the proposition knowable?

Bits and pieces from Newsweek:

Gorbachev Feels His Life's Work Being Destroyed by Putin, Close Friend Says (Jul 23, 2022)

At 91 and at poor health, he's probably not going to get killed for his words. Then again...you never know.

Putin Says U.S. Using Ukrainians as 'Cannon Fodder', Trying to Prolong War (Aug 16, 2022)

Yet, Putin could end the war whenever. Blames the entire "west" while bombing Ukrainians. Is his propaganda/diversion working?

You could be all-knowing and not know that you were...?

, sorry, a friend, didn't want to put their name on display. Their comment seemed relevant enough.

Hypothetically of course, what might motivate Putin and team to take over Ukraine (over a short- or longer-term)?

Strategic (militarily and other):
The geographic strategic advantages of Ukraine being part of Russia should be fairly obvious.
Has come up in the thread here and there.
(Crimea, connecting Russia and Transnistria, etc.)
A Russian Ukraine would extend Russia further into Europe, bordering Hungary and Slovakia, ..., influence, missile ranges, whatever.

Economic:
By now, most should know that Ukrainian agriculture is big on the world stage.
High-tech and minerals are also big.
(By the way, according to rumors, the last Antonov An-225 Mriya was destroyed during the invasion, would'a :heart:'d seeing/flying one.)
What would subsuming Ukraine mean for Russian economy?
^{(I have little overview on this stuff, heck, GMOs, droughts, climate change could be factors for all I know)}

Political:
Taking over Ukraine (in part or whole) would be a victory for Putin (or could be construed as such), one that could secure his future.
Losing face over the invasion could be bad for him and team, right down to lethal.
That's domestic; foreign is much more wishy-washy, at least I've come to expect little.

A disadvantage could be Ukrainian resistance (now terrorists) and Russo-haters; hard to tell how such like would figure in Putin's concerns.
Another disadvantage could be international responses and distrust.

Quoting RM from elsewhere

Republicans are promising to investigate Hunter Biden in Congress. Since when was the House of Representatives a criminal investigation unit purposed to investigate civilians? The only purpose would be to embarass Hunter's father, and hence that would be yet another Republican abuse of power.
The Jan 6 investigation is in contrast legitimate because it involved an assault on Congress instigated by another branch of government. — RM

That said, I agree with your point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — Janus

Would it not be more accurate to say that absence of proof is not proof of absence?
(Or, absence of evidence is not proof of absence, for that matter?)

Localized spikes...

Hot summers in the Mediterranean area.
North America is less affected here (temperature).

Jun-Aug is winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

EDIT: link is: https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1553417991408308226

Some say that NATO threatens Russia, like sovereignty or even existential.
Some say that NATO defends members together against Russia, constraining free rein.

Might not be an "exclusive or"; we can consider both. I'm guessing markedly more people are interested in Russia not rolling over others, than rolling over Russia. For that matter, I'm guessing markedly more people are interested in good relations, building trust, reliability, trade, than posturing and hostilities. Putin + team could be a different matter.

Ukraine sought membership, now canceled, ☢ threats stand out. Sweden and Finland seek membership, now under way, the defense thing above. Unfair if you will; at least Ukrainians haven't been left on their own.

Peace would mean the attacker stops attacking (a defender can't just declare peace :grin:), i.e. Putin's Russia.

What might Zelenskyy capitulating entail, jus post bellum? We can only guess, check history, Russia, ... Meanwhile the Ukrainians are fighting :fire: for their sovereignty and such; a capitulation would not end fighting, but tune it down, and render it "illegal". Surrendering to evil is a wretched pseudo-peace, we have examples where this is worse than resistance/war, or where fighting is just. (I'll abstain from a quote-spam, Plato, Tacitus, Burke, Mill, Niemöller, Wiesel.) Peace ☮ is the goal, not bad peace.

So, ehh anyway, NATO, a threat to and/or defense against Putin's Russia?

_{• Ukraine | Médecins Sans Frontières medical and humanitarian aid; • List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Antebellum South; • Auschwitz; • North Korea; • Uyghur; • Russia: Authorities launch witch-hunt to catch anyone sharing anti-war views
• World Development Report 2011 : Conflict, Security, and Development; • In the aftermath of Genocide: Guatemala’s failed reconciliation (worthwhile read)}


EDIT:
Should have mentioned that ...

Some say that NATO threatens Russia, like sovereignty or even existential. — jorndoe

... has been commented on quite a bit in the thread (re-repeats).

, seems like radicalism is gaining. :/

Indiana Senate narrowly passes near-total abortion ban (Jul 31, 2022)

Ukrainians should fight — boethius

I thought it was more that the Ukrainians will fight?
(not so much due to Zelenskyy, more that they're not inclined to hand the keys over to Russia)
Maybe that's just me.
I wouldn't mind them repelling the attacker-bomber, make the would-be land-grabber think twice, deter the invader. If they're going to fight? Heck yeah.

, OK, so you're using the verbiage differently. :)

(my bad, thought it was clear enough, but should have been more explicit)

, we have been, and are, modifying the atmosphere and the surface of the planet.
Laissez-faire, doing nothing, carries a risk.
Doing something (about CO₂, deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, population growth, renewability, whatever) may or may not carry a different risk.
What's the worst that can happen? Say, if we start actually addressing climate change? Would that (oddly) be worse than doing nothing? Say, is a cleaner environment bad somehow? :brow:
That's an assessment we can't just ignore, regardless of what the deniers say, and they'd have us do nothing, thus ignoring a considerable risk.

, we have to consider the consequences either way, as well — the risks.
What might happen if we do nothing, and we were wrong?
What might happen if we do something, and we were wrong?
Arguing alone has the same consequences, the same risks, as doing nothing, and that's the way of the deniers.

Some have argued about perdurantism versus endurantism. Something seems to be missing here though, not convinced either will do.

After Mariupol had been bombed back to medieval ages, largely destroyed, thousands killed, I was a bit taken aback by Denis Pushilin's statements:

The task is to make Mariupol a resort city, which has not been possible before — TASS (May 9, 2022)

if Azovstal is not restored, then we will make a resort town — TASS (May 9, 2022)

Vacation-spot to-be for the rich and Russian oligarchs I guess, if he can find the funds? Looking around two/three months later, it seems accountability may be forgotten soon enough?

an actual argument that the mind is not an immaterial soul — Bartricks

Isn't there an existential claim hiding there that needs justification in its own right...? "immaterial soul"?

Probably read this or something similar here on the forum... Mind is to body much like what digestion is to stomach.