, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). Shouldn't prevent you from voting, right?

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

OK, well, FYI I tossed something together over at: Defendant: Saudi Arabia (poll)
A start anyway. There are also topics like heavy patriarchism/female rights, Sunni versus Shia, exploitation, Yemen, etc. If the poll says "Guilty", then there's at least some consensus here to question relations with Saudi Arabia, and that includes the US — *gah* the unholy mess of oil + economies + Middle Eastern situation + politics + sponsorships — *ough* could go up in flames.

^{Posted in Humanities and Social Sciences; wasn't really sure if that's the best spot.}

so I must be a Kremlin propagandist? — Tzeentch

Nope.

What are you expecting me to respond to that? — Tzeentch

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. (Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing.

Evidence, please. — RussellA

Uhm ask the Saudi Arabian accusers/authorities to prove their case.

Until allegations can be justified, relevantly (and proportionally), which has never materialized, the Saudi Arabian authorities consequently stand accused.°

This is a case where existential verification, not falsification, applies; I'll just keep denying their superstitions unless they come through, as others have done before, and as I'm sure others will once I'm gone.
(Other than that: get real. :wink:)

, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else.

Just FYI, I personally witnessed the optimism, friendships, the events, openness that followed, in the 1990s. People want(ed) to become friends, to cultivate positive relationships. Heck, I think it made it into popular culture/entertainment in the US. (Though I'm sure this could be construed as propaganda by the so inclined.)

Russian election: Biggest protests since fall of USSR (Dec 10, 2011)
Worldwide Protests Against the Russian Duma Election Fraud (Dec 12, 2011)
Robert Conquest: Russia's Election Protests and the Soviet Past (updated Nov 14, 2017)
Moscow Protesters Stage Series Of One-Person Pickets In Call For Free Elections (Aug 17, 2019) "illegal mass gatherings"

(at some point I'm going to quit all this recall, might be futile here anyway)

And so, here it is again (again):

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, and how changes might foster increased optimism, trust, further and closer relations, etc, then so be it (talk about tunnel vision). I can tell you with some confidence that a few Europeans would welcome this and be happy to build on it; yep, it's happened before, until the regressive moves reached a threshold.

, here it is again:

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ... — jorndoe

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ...

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better? — Tzeentch

No, you can't have missed it or you skirted past (straight to the requisite party line). Quoted above. It's now about:

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think?

Keep in mind that "two wrongs don't make a right", not going to take your bait to futilely defend the US, the thread already established that everyone's evil remember?

^{(Part of this isn't some off-the-ground abstraction but more straightforward; how about you go to Moscow and set up comprehensive criticism of Putin right there, and then go to London and do something similar with respect to the UK? What might be the difference (if you ever make it to London)?)}

Macron riles Russia with documentary releasing content of Putin calls (Le Monde; Jun 30, 2022)

What happens in Paris does not always stay in Paris.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States. — Tzeentch

Maybe?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

Presumably you're not among those few?

Connect the dots, there's a sufficient reason, it's hardly new or anything, now with rattling of nukes and missiles too, ...

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize?


Ukraine/Russia: Violations of cultural rights will impede post-war healing – UN expert (OHCHR; May 25, 2022)

If Mexico and China oddly set up a defense pact, then the US couldn't do much about it. But the US would surely react if China were to set up nuclear weaponry in Mexico.

^{(went over a tedious bunch of Kremlin/Putin↗ statements/actions and some commentaries from analysts again)
Feb 20, 2014: Russia grabs Crimea
Feb 24, 2022: Russia invades Ukraine
Jul 05, 2022: blasted bombing of Ukraine ongoing}

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗?

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; some have sought a NATO shield. Say, Hungary and Ukraine haven't sought protection from each other. Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? Invading Russia isn't in NATO's charter(†), defending against Russian invasion is. Ukraine was + is like a sitting duck, and is being blasted.

^{(†) not that attacking nuke-ratting Russia seems like a good idea anyway}

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation?

all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored — Tzeentch

It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread?

limit Russia's influence in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Middle-East — Tzeentch

So, a land grab it is?

^{(From memory, Putin and compadres haven't complained much about Ukraine/EU relations, at least not as an excuse for invading/bombing Ukraine. By the way, the opinions/analyses of Mearsheimer matter as well, giving more angles; that being said, they're not the be-all-end-all of the situation.)}

:/

A 10-Year-Old Girl in Ohio Was Forced to Travel to Indiana for an Abortion (Jul 2, 2022)

So that's what's going on, eh.

Russia attacked Ukraine precisely because it tried to join NATO. — Tzeentch

The Kremlin line. Others apparently bought it wholesale. Portrayed like this by some:



It's worth keeping in mind that Ukrainian NATO membership would primarily mean limiting Russia's ability to move/act freely. And anti-missile systems in Ukraine would mean a decreased nuclear threat from Russia — defensive again, a constraint on the feasibility of Putinian ambitions.

Sure, Ukrainian NATO membership might have been seen as a threat to/by Russia, or some Russians. (Odd how Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland didn't/don't consider NATO a threat, though?)

When Putin and compadres started rattling the nukes, NATO responded by dropping Ukraine's NATO membership application, and, after a bit of whining, Zelenskyy conceded the membership. On public record. The NATO excuse stopped being much of a reason a while back. Dropping it hasn't changed much on the attackers' part — they've kept the blasted bombing up, and that affects the Ukrainians on the ground.

Sweden and Finland seeking membership as protective measures (like Ukraine) have been met with a casual, yet vaguely ominous, response from Putin.

NATO as an excuse, a pretext, carries more weight than NATO as a viable reason. But I'm re-repeating, much like others.

The Ukrainian side can stop everything before the end of the current day, we need an order for nationalist units to lay down their arms, an order for the Ukrainian military to lay down their arms, and we need to fulfill the conditions of the Russian Federation. Everything can end before the end of the day. The rest is the thoughts of the head of the Ukrainian state. — Peskov (Jun 28, 2022)

It is ridiculous to think that if Zelensky gives such an order, the people will lay down their arms. People are fighting not for Zelensky, not for the president. Like some. — Evgeny Vladimirovich

And the president said that we do not need Ukrainian territories. — Victor B

, hmm, dang, well at least it was little bit positive. :)

Some ramblings and goings-on in the trenches...

Five killed, 22 injured in Ukrainian artillery attacks in Donetsk, Russian-backed separatists say (Jun 14, 2022)
The Ukrainians are shooting back. Civilian (and whatever) casualties are bad whoever does the shooting.

Ukraine: Russian warplanes pound Kyiv after weeks of calm (Jun 26, 2022)

Revenge?

The Kremlin claimed it is possible to end the war by the end of today and suggests capitulation (Jun 28, 2022)
^{(has link to original Russian source)}

Peskov says: Ukraine, just give up, and no more bombs (with a smile). :D Doesn't seem like the Ukrainians want to lie down and die, or kneel to Putin, though. (Who would?) Suppose Ukraine was to all-out capitulate. Realistically, what then? A number of resistance groups would likely form (to be labeled "terrorists" by Kremlin of course), and shooting would change some, but not quite cease. Anyone speaking of freeing Ukraine or suggesting resistance would be "dealt with". Kremlin would seek as many collaborators as needed/feasible, place puppets in strategic positions, happily collect weaponry supplied by foreigners, the usual. Would take time, but Putin's ambitions would be (at least partially) satisfied, and other neighbors of Putin's Russia would likely get (additionally) worried.

Russian missiles kill at least 21 in Ukraine’s Odesa region (Jul 1, 2022)

^{Losing sight of the simplest of facts can lose sight of things that (also) matter.
Ukraine was interested in joining NATO - protection against Putin's ambitions was as good a reason as any - and they sought membership (Sweden and Finland followed). With Putin's threats (and rattling the nuclear weaponry), Ukraine and NATO dropped such a membership. Threats worked. Bombing ongoing. Hopefully, we won't see the same with the Baltics (already NATO members), Sweden, Finland.
Ukraine is interested in joining EU, and closer trade relations. Still on the table. (Hey, UK's spot became vacant, though they still seem to argue about that on the isles. :smile:) Could be a win for Ukraine, more cooperation, import/export/exchanges, improving internal matters.
Ukraine seemed to be on a trajectory towards internal improvements, even if slowly in some areas. Political, social, open enough with international peers to consider internal changes. The materialization of Putin's ambitions put a halt to such likes, a setback.
Ukraine didn't choose Russia over others, but looked elsewhere, and also didn't threaten Russia. Putin chose bombs, potential friendship apparently off the table.}

The thread having established that everyone is evil, maybe we should include some positive things as well?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed the Finance Ministry to initiate an agreement on providing financial assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Russian government will conclude an agreement on financial aid with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Mar 2, 2009)

Abkhazia to receive 2.36 billion rubles ($68 million) from the Russian federal budget and South Ossetia 2.8 billion rubles ($81 million)
[...]
South Ossetia would also receive 8.5 billion rubles ($246 million) to rebuild — Russia signs financial aid deals with Abkhazia, South Ossetia-2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mainwhile ...

:o

Statement on Roe v. Wade Decision

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe. V. Wade, ending the 50–year Constitutional protection for abortion. This reversal opens the door for what will likely be over half of the states in the U.S. restricting and even outright banning abortion and bodily autonomy — human rights and essential healthcare services.

Nearly 1 in 4 women (24%) in the U.S. have an abortion by the age of 45. Taking away safe and accessible facilities and care will be catastrophic — particularly for rural, poor, Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ people. This decision does not end abortion. It will end safe abortion for many across the country, restricting access to critical reproductive health services at a time when the United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates of high-income countries.

This decision sets a dangerous legal precedent for states that plan to restrict and take away women’s essential right to making important decisions that affect the health and well-being of themselves and their families.

This decision also paves the road for further limiting the rights and autonomy of all Americans, and it damages the United States’ global standing on human rights – weakening its ability to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights and legitimizing other governments’ actions to restrict rights and access to care.

We stand with experts, scholars, and activists in our commitment to safe abortion, accessible healthcare, and bodily autonomy. — ICRW

(EDIT wrong comment)

The conduct is unprofessional, since is introduces the potential for excluding some students on religious grounds. The coach should have been aware of that possibility, and hence his behaviour was negligent. — Banno

:up:

One more thing about the "praying" football coach. Let's be really clear that this isn't about personal prayer. It is about a uniquely Christian intention to use "prayer" in a public place as a means to evangelize.

Ever notice how it's only ever evangelical Christians who insist on being permitted to practice their religion through expressions of public prayer, with captive audiences? Using public microphones, using influence as an authority figure, desiring not only to pray, but to do so publicly, in classrooms with students, at secular sports events, when everyone is still around, etc? Have you ever heard of a Christian suing for access to prayer when there wasn't a public audience involved? The true desire is not prayer, but evangelism.

I'm a Christian. I can pray personally anywhere I am, at any moment. Silently, or out loud if I'm alone. And I do, every day. It's easy. But what they are doing is pretending that the only possible way for them to pray privately is to hijack the microphone publicly, which enables them to exploit the trust and access that their public secular role affords them. ***The possibility of influencing others isn't a byproduct, it is the point.***

By enshrining this behavior as constitutionally protected religious practice, the government is now perpetuating - establishing - the Christian trojan horse strategy of rebranding evangelism as prayer. And it does so at the expense of mutual respect, autonomy, and healthy boundaries between authority figures and members of the public, in public spaces. — Tom Ryberg · Jun 28, 2022

(EDIT moved part of comment)

:D

The Borowitz Report: Trump Fears Putin Is Too Distracted by Ukraine to Help Him with 2024 Campaign

:D

:D

Well, it's not like Putin has improved the :heart:.

Hmm ?

Even if that were true (it isn't), do you think attacking bombing ruinage and killing civilian and other Ukraine/Ukrainians somehow helps...? :chin: Weird.

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now.
Done, no more of the ruinage and killing, civilian and other, refugees could return home and rebuild.

come from — ChatteringMonkey

autonomous moral agents.

Surely we're influenced by culture, traditions, etc.
Yet, we can't derive what we ought to do from traditions.

It's on us, always was

Oh wait, you confirmed, sort of:

if you let tradition or culture turn to shit, you will end up a lot of people using shit ideas when making these moral judgement — ChatteringMonkey

(EDITED)

, it doesn't take vacuum for ...

the problem would consist in not skipping a tradition, despite that being the right thing to do in some situation

Yep, we should cultivate and nurture moral awareness → autonomous moral agency. :up:
Old comment.
Morals aren't reducible to traditions, they're not identical (you can find counter-examples).
It's on us, always was; not just a walk in the park; in some given situation you might have to skip a tradition to do the right thing.

Shouldn't decision-makers do the right thing regardless of traditions, perhaps even in spite of traditions as the case may be...?

Pawing off morals to something else is problematic; actually it's almost like a kind of moral blindness.

(EDITED words and such)

Is that supposed to be an argument? Or did you think I'd forgotten what your opinion was? — Isaac

Not going to repeat whatever previous comments already in the thread.
We'd start anew ever so often. :D

I'd urge anyone who would mindlessly parrot propaganda here - those who have chosen their "team" and will cheerlead it into its respective destructions - to carefully consider what it is exactly they're seeking and thus enabling. — Tzeentch

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now.
Done, no more of the ruinage and killing, civilian and other, refugees could return home and rebuild.

, I thought it was fairly obvious that ethics ≠ traditions, but maybe not?
Would just take some examples to show.

Shouldn't decision-makers do the right thing regardless of traditions, perhaps even in spite of traditions as the case may be...?

the problem would consist in not skipping a tradition, despite that being the right thing to do in some situation

Ethics are more bound to autonomous moral agents, doing right in whatever given situation regardless of traditions; traditions are more bound to culture, following whatever has been done before regardless of doing what's right.
Sure, they may overlap, yet they're not the same.

Americans Still Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade
^{Lydia Saad · Gallup · Jun 9, 2021}

Granted, numbers vary regionally.

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low
^{Jeffrey M Jones · Gallup · Jun 23, 2022}

Not really looking good.

As mentioned by , the decision wasn't based on human rights treaties, natural rights theories (+ bodily integrity), bioethics, and nor on general public opinion.

Maybe we'll start seeing more of this...?

The Supreme Court rewarded religious coercion by a Christian football coach
^{Hemant Mehta
Jun 27, 2022}

Wouldn't be all that surprising. I guess Muslims, Hindus, Wicca, Jedi :grin:, etc, should all join the public school football prayer sessions. Or not. Based on Mehta's commentary, I'd vote no confidence in SCOTUS, but haven't checked and verified all the details.

⁵ And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

⁶ But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. — Matthew 6:5-6

It's the world against , "The West", Christians, men, you name it.
, I suggest we all join you in a counter-strike, what say you? :smile:

Let's kill them! With kindness. — The Coach

Can't be captured so easily. :)

- act with being concerned (ok, that sounds a bit awkward); act with concern, yo!
- do tha' right thing
- do not do wrong; hey, do no harm (is that cheating?)
- get your conscience together (hmm maybe not so good)

, the problem would consist in not skipping a tradition, despite that being the right thing to do in some situation.
Shouldn't be hard to exemplify; may not apply to all traditions of course, maybe someone has a tradition that just says "do the right thing"?
Ethics ≠ traditions.

, too naïve. It's a land-grab (attempt).
The Ukrainians are sitting ducks (no NATO), something Putin would know as well as anyone.

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be America’s New Normal. (May 17, 2022)

Whiff of fascism.

Don't know enough about the legalities...

The Missouri law, which provides no exception for rape or incest, classifies the act of inducing an abortion as a class B felony, meaning it could result in a five- to 15-year prison sentence. It applies to abortion providers, though it’s unclear whether someone could be prosecuted for using abortion-inducing medications, per the NPR station. — Republican-run US states move to immediately ban abortion after court overturns Roe v Wade (Jun 24, 2022)

It's "a monumental day for" regressive conservatism, religious sentiments being imposed upon others apparently, no mention of sober bioethics either.

dedicated to traditional Japanese values — javi2541997

lost its spiritual tradition — javi2541997

Political figures were representatives of our traditions back then — javi2541997

Ethics and traditions aren't the same things, though.
Shouldn't decision-makers do the right thing regardless of traditions, perhaps even in spite of traditions as the case may be...?

Maybe this is a good time for females in the US to relocate?





^{Source: Guttmacher Institute}



, when people like DeSantis and Cruz become elected officials, you know something's gone sour.

The main question is when life deserves moral consideration. For pro-life, this seems to often be at the moment of conception or some time early after that (I don’t see a lot of protests about Plan B for instance). In particular, this is for human life, not any sentient life in general. For pro-choice, it’s unclear and varies among people. — Paulm12

Sober bioethics should inform towards making a decision, and that hasn't happened here.

Putin's Russia is threatened by NATO.
It's just that the threat is against Putin's expansion (land-grabbing) ambitions.

And that goes to show how the sort of tu quoque type switch of narrative, "NATO is the threat", has been successful.
"Bring up and focus on that, and watch", you might hear Surkov say, with Medinsky nodding in agreement, and Kiselyov implementing for the masses.
"Shut others down", you might hear Putin say.
That was easy. :sparkle:

It became clear enough some time ago that no NATO membership for Ukraine isn't a peace-maker.
And Russian bombs are still bringing ruinage to Ukraine. :fire:

Can always lower the bar some more I guess.

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro says he'd exact revenge by issuing subpoenas to Biden, Pelosi, and the Jan. 6 Committee if Republicans win in 2024 (Business Insider; Jun 3, 2022)

Ex-Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Vowed Revenge On Biden Before Being Indicted (HuffPost; Jun 3, 2022)

And Trump threatened Clinton on live TV way back when.

Let's not forget that following Jesus' demise, Christianity turned into a number of (fanatic) factions, not a single dominant homogenous unified movement, which would take some centuries still.
Celsus (≈ 175, well versed in Judaism), commented on the zealous rivals, and Theodosius I (347-395) decreed them "demented lunatics" in 380 — except for the Roman Catholics of course, now rubber-stamped by the empire.
But, with the backing of the Roman empire, Catholicism eventually came out on top, and outlasted the empire.
By 1350 the Catholic church had eradicated the Cathars, for example.
Christian involvement in anti-Semitism is a matter of record, including the founder of Protestantism.

Today (for some time), Christianity (like Islam) primarily maintain numbers by enculturation and indoctrination.
(Why else would anyone believe that a Jewish carpenter supernaturally fed 5000 then 4000 with a handful of food?)
When the requisite religious creeds tell them to do so, there's an element of self-sustaining propagation involved.
If memory serves, Sunnism overtook Catholicism in numbers worldwide around the turn of the millennium, and Islam at large is projected to overtake Christianity at large in some decades.

^{• Christians remain world’s largest religious group, but they are declining in Europe (Pew Research Center; Apr 5, 2017)
• Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group (Pew Research Center; Apr 6, 2017)}

I thought... Didn't the thread already establish that everyone is bad, evil, something like that...? — jorndoe

What about the Chinese, the Saudis, the Aussies, the Brunei, and the Dutch?

What's clearly needed is the much more firm, down-to-earth explanation that he's been possessed by the ghost of a long dead dictator. Much more reasonable. — Isaac

I read 's comment as witty, I guess not everyone did.

To cover up their crimes, some Australians have apparently converted to Buddhism and are calling Putin a “malevolent spirit” to deflect attention from themselves. — Apollodorus

Who are they?

Anyway, Putin has aired his thinking, not really new or anything, has already been suggested in this thread a few times.