If ceding territory ends the war (even has only a good chance of doing so) then that's a huge positive. To counter that there'd need to be a massive negative. All you've given thus far to weigh against it is the "punish Putin" argument and the "Ukraine is better than Russia" argument. — Isaac

Indeed. Put another way: if one were to really hate Ukrainians, what would be the best course of action? Do the opposite of that. I'd like to think that continual bombing and killing is worse than negotiated settlement(s).

So if you're someone who hates Ukrainians (and thus "Ukraine" in the abstract), the best route is to avoid negotiations. This will all but guarantee the conflict continues.

So it's not that those who advocate for "standing up to a bully," punishing the bad guy, protecting freedom around the world, etc. etc. (all of which are pretty easy to say when your own life isn't on the line) don't care about Ukrainians -- maybe they do. It's just interesting that the results are the same, regardless of intention: dead people, continuous warfare, escalation of nuclear fallout, etc.

Yeah, it's a clowncar of absurd self-serving slogans. That's why I only drop in for the occasional disparagement. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Neither logic nor disparagement work; he hasn't the logical intelligence or the emotional intelligence for either. Yet I feel it's necessary to continue doing both, lest anyone new to the forum mistakes his pathological worldview as representative.

In the stomach and the soul. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As if NOS's laughable rantings on causality has something to do with capitalism.

My (and others) interpretation of him must be fake news. It's because I'm a communist. Or because I'm anti-American. Etc. Whatever it takes not to examine oneself.

What a shocker that he brings it back to pedophilia again. Extreme right wingers do seem obsessed with it. It's strange. :chin:

Censors throughout history — NOS4A2

…followed by the usual bullshit. :lol:

Please expound more on your sticks and stones theory. It’s riveting.

Whether it's a gun or an ear, the physics of causation is the same. — Michael

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me. — Michael

Obvious to anyone not trying desperately to defend an indefensible political position.

It’s based entirely on emotion, ultimately. In this simplistic Ayn Randian world, everything we know about physics and causality have to suspend.

All to defend the “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” philosophy. It always seems to boil down to Nickelodeon principles with plutocracy-loving, anti-social narcissists.

Was the point that Trump isn't responsible for Jan 6? — Tate

Exactly. That’s what all this bullshit is about.

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses? — NOS4A2

:lol:

We just learned that what words mean and do is solely up to your discretion my dear readers. — Tobias

No no — what you choose to DO with those words is up to your discretion. Because we have free will and we’re conscious entities blah blah.

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.
— Xtrix
Yes. — ssu

Okay. And you acknowledge its current influence on world affairs.

Putting these things together, there’s every reason to assume the US has a hand in this conflict — even if we know next to nothing about the particular event. So we’re in agreement.

You go on to ask why this is discussed over other issues — which is what I meant by “matter of emphasis.” I think it gets discussed at length because when it’s pointed out it gets misrepresented as a defense of Putin— or simply denied, when it should be taken for granted. (Just as condemning this invasion should be taken for granted — I see no one excusing Putin’s crimes either.)

Personally, as a US citizen I often bring matters back to my government’s involvement for the simple reason that I feel I can do the most to change it (and admittedly little at that). They supposedly represent me, after all. But that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring Russian responsibility.

We all agree we want this to end, yes? So discussing every part of the issue is important. One part is the United States. Happens to be a major part. Still missing where the gulf lies.

waving the "US is bad" flag. — ssu

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.

You also acknowledge that the US, just by being the worlds largest economy (and most powerful militarily), has real influence over nearly all major events around the globe.

It’s also true that Putin’s invasion was and is immoral and stupid, and that the deaths of civilians is beyond words.

So why the characterization as “US bad”? The US isn’t bad— the choices powerful people have made (and continue to make) within the government of the United States is “bad.”

I’m still not seeing where the major disagreement lies. A matter of emphasis?

This thread is eclectic. 30% information, 70% sarcasm and insults.

Kudos for those continuing to try after 265 pages.

I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely.

I guess feedback from others is irrelevant in this worldview. Anything critical is fake news.

As to who we should understand the botched and weak to be... If it's some set of human beings - no matter how numerically insignificant a set - then this is an evil teaching. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why?

Pedophiles, rapists, murderers. They’re a set of human beings. They seem the botched and weak to me. Doesn’t seem evil to help them perish.

But Nietzsche can be interpreted any way you like. He’s been blamed for the Nazis and for everything else under the sun. Not without some reason, of course. But given he’s intentionally being contrarian and provocative, this shouldn’t be a surprise.

I think his emphasis on values is still relevant.

:up:

Agreed.

I think he felt like the botched and the weak stood in the way of humankind's evolution. And literally felt it would benefit humankind to do them in.

Monstrous. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think it’s monstrous to want the weak and botched to thrive at the expense of everyone else.

He’s talking about values, and is usually figurative. If you read this as “kill all the disabled people” or something— no I don’t think that’s accurate. Nietzsche himself was sick most of his life.

He’s often deliberately provocative. Plenty of interesting things to say about pity.

Also, I agree with him. If you read this as “kill off all the Jews” or something to that affect, that’s your preference. That’s not how I read it.

He's a monster. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Come on. You can’t be serious.

Any political party suggesting we should infuse our society with deadly weapons to make it safer would be considered morons and immediately lose power. — Baden

And anyone suggesting our government might try to kill us would honestly raise mental health alarm bells. — Baden

The United States corporatocracy is very skilled at getting a large percentage of its citizens to believe anything. The gun manufacturers and their lobbying firm, the NRA, also own their Republicans and the followers. It also fits in nicely with their “Government is the problem” mantra.

We’re also a very frightened country. Abnormally so. Also a product of the corporate media.

In defense of my countrymen, however, the majority of the population nevertheless wants gun control.

Paranoia, delusion, and mythology find a way to continue on. Don’t look for logic.

You're avoiding any type of discussion. — Tzeentch

Lol. Yes and what a discussion it was. “You put all your faith in government.” :yawn:

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch

:yawn:

No, it’s just that we don’t use persecutory delusions to justify the status quo.

(The status quo being the killing of children because of the abundance of guns.)

America has long been a country of guns. It has not long been a country of school shootings. — Moses

It has been both. They increase with an increase in guns and deregulation. As has been shown.

But feel free to ignore all of that and cherrypick data. This way we can all stay baffled by why the US has so many mass shootings compared to other counties. It can’t possibly be the guns. And if it is, there’s nothing we can do about it. All so we can pretend we’re safe from the boogeyman.

Just put a little bandaid over it and trust that your government won't do it again, eh? — Tzeentch

Sorry to hear that others don't succumb to your persecutory delusions.

The government could come for us, so lets make sure we have a glut of guns, make billions of profits for gun manufacturers (who definitely aren't involved in setting the debate or influencing government), and cling to the fantasy that we'd heroically fend off the military.

Makes perfect sense.

There's always been a high supply of guns in the US, gun ownership levels are consistent since at least the 1970s; the number of school shootings has increased drastically since the 2010s. Numbers have been very high in recent years. Peak levels. I suspect a mental health crises. — Moses

The supply of guns has increased substantially in this last decade, as I've shown in a previous chart.

Guns sold in the last two years went from an average of 1 million a month to 2 million a month. 2021 was the second highest year since 2000 for gun sales.



This has also been studied. The evidence is clear: it's guns. This is why the US is an outlier compared to other developed countries. Your gut feelings about "suspecting" a mental health crisis notwithstanding.

You bore me. — I like sushi

Says the guy who, after a tragedy caused by the sickening amount of guns in this country, wants to "rationally" inquire about literally everything else.

Be bored somewhere else.

We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it, but if that were to happen the army isn't going to stop it. — Tzeentch

There have been plenty of government overthrows in countries that don’t have close to the amount of guns the US does. Besides, guns weren’t needed to take over the Capitol building last year. Just a few thousand imbeciles whipped up into a frenzy.

Bottom line: Control the gun supply and harshly regulate accessibility. 400 + million guns is grotesque.

Well … no. When it comes to homocides the US is WAY ahead. I have actually looked at the stats too you know ;)

True, around 80% of those are gun related — I like sushi

So maybe it’s not guns, because we’re more violent than other countries for some cultural reason — and definitely not because of guns.

I have no clue as to why you’d want to come to this thread with hypotheticals when this problem is cut and dry. If you’re not a gun fetishist, what’s your point? “Maybe it’s not the guns”? Or “let’s talk about mental health”?

Come on.

It addresses all that. The US is no more violent, has no more mental illnesses, and has no more crime than other developed countries. And even excluding the US, the same pattern emerges; the more guns there are the more mass shootings there are. Which is fucking obvious. — Michael

Absolutely.

Take the US out of the picture and ask the same question: is country X exceptional? Why are there so many people who want to kill? Must be video games or culture or …

We should treat people with mental illness. We should have better healthcare. We should improve our culture and conditions. In the meantime: control the gun supply and the availability of guns.

Flood any country on earth with guns and you’ll get more deaths by guns, more mass shootings, etc.

Simple and obvious to any rational observer who hasn’t been sucked into this false “debate.”

This is a philosophy forum so it might be worth considering that the US has a different culture to other cultures around the world.

I am being rational. — I like sushi

No, you’re being incredibly irrational.

It has been considered, and studied in fact. What you’re asking me to do is ignore the glaringly obvious for the hypothetical. Maybe the US is an outlier for some completely mysterious reason— sure. Maybe that’s it. Maybe God hates us more— who knows?

Anything to avoid the rationality we employ on any other issue that hasn’t been engineered to be controversial by powerful interests.

It’s incredible. In any rational society, it’s obvious what the problem is. Here, it’s “perplexing.” “What is causing this?!”

It definitely has NOTHING to with the 400 million guns.

it is. — Moses

It isn’t. Stop the gun supply, and you lower mass shootings.

blaming it all on gun culture is not accurate. — Moses

he showed many red flags. — Moses

The United States, like every other country, has people with mental health issues. They are often a product of bad conditions and show warning signs.

The difference is the amount of guns. I’ll repeat this as many times as necessary. Michael posted at length an article that cites research on this issue.

The issue is the supply of guns. Government can very easily control and regulate this— as many other countries have done.

Mental health.

Second amendment as holy writ.

Arming teachers (i.e., MORE guns).

Viet Cong.

Protecting ourselves from big government.

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
_____


Just off the top of my head. Expect all of the above from the gun fetishists. :yawn:

Meanwhile, a lot more kids will have to die.

we all want these shootings to stop but the enforcement aspect is very very difficult. — Moses

No it isn’t. It’s only difficult in this country because of the fetishizing of the 2nd amendment and cultivation of gun culture. The NRA has had enormous political power for decades. They’ve done such a good job brainwashing the population that even if they disappeared, the gun obsession would continue.

Like I said, what if guns were taken out of circulation yet the degree of violence continued with cases of stabbings that effectively made little difference to the kill count? — I like sushi

Is this supposed to be serious?

“What if”? We know the answer. Look around the world. Less guns, less mass shootings. Same rates of mental illness.

Making this obvious problem about mentally illness is an NRA talking point. Stop imitating Ted Cruz.

My point is why everyone is obsessed with this debate rather than focusing more carefully on what drives someone to kill in the manner they do in the US whilst in other countries this kind of thing is rare. — I like sushi

The reason for these deaths is the gun supply. You have mental health issues around the world. The US is an outlier on deaths and mass shootings because of the amount of guns combined with the ease of access/ownership to guns.

Speculation about what drives people to do what they do — who knows. Upbringing, culture, material conditions, lack of healthcare, poor education, abuse/neglect, etc. True, the US is awful in many respects — without guns. Add hundreds of millions of guns, including assault weapons, into the mix — with very few regulations — and you have a recipe for exactly what we see.

All enabled by those who have been brainwashed by the weapons manufacturing industry to fetishize guns and the 2nd amendment. We can be real men if we own one. We can defend ourselves — like the Vietnamese — when Big Government comes for us one day. Etc. You see them crawling out from under their rocks right here on the forum.

It is exactly what would stop it. — Tzeentch

No, it would do nothing to stop it.

What you’re doing is repeating propaganda. You’ve been sold an idea, and a silly one. It’s a fantasy created to justify the grotesque amount of guns in the United States.

All people like you do is enable the continued killing of children. That’s all.

Given the actions of governments world-wide over the past few years I would beg to differ. — Tzeentch

And owning an assault weapon will do nothing to stop it anyway. This is just another bullshit excuse for the grotesque amount of guns in the US.

Stop repeating gun manufacturer propaganda.

We have more shootings because we have more guns. The manufactured “debate” about this is over. Guns should be heavily regulated. Bringing back the assault weapons ban would be a start.

All proletarians are wage-laborers, but not all wage-laborers are proletarians. — Moliere

I include anyone who makes a wage and isn’t an owner part of the proletariat. There can be gradations, but it’s on par with white and blue collar, upper middle and middle class, etc.

Nothing will change. That was obvious 10 years ago. So don’t look for it.

It was then that our elected “leaders” decided gun manufacturing sales were more important than childrens’ lives.

So like everything else in this stupid country, we’ll have to keep waiting for things to get so bad that to do nothing will trigger a mass revolt. I’m thinking something like a Sandy Hook every week. That may work. A few months/years is apparently too long an interim. But who knows? Maybe every day is needed.

Same with climate change, incidentally. Evidently once-in-a-generation storms, floods, wildfires, droughts, and temperatures isn’t quite “rock bottom” enough.

You have to be in awe of the power of ruling class propaganda.

This war seems to be dying down a bit. I’m hopeful for a ceasefire within a few months.

The consequences of this war will be felt for years to come. That’s the only certainty I can see.

In the end, one has to be dumbfounded by the stupid, stupid move on Putin’s part. To say nothing about the immorality.

Also great to see bipartisan support for the US government actively contributing to, and benefiting from, this atrocity. Comforting to know some things never change.

In unrelated news: Lockheed stock has surged nearly 13% since mid February. Chevron about 30%. Thankfully neither industry has much pull in Washington.

Woah, a pro war puff piece in The Atlantic. What a surprise! — Isaac

It’s a pity— I’ve been impressed with the Atlantic in recent years.

bourgeoisie/proletariat and specifically *not* employer/worker. — Moliere

The proletariat are thems who are paid just enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough to become workers themselves and start the process all over again. If you have more than that then even if you have nothing to sell but your labor you're a worker -- but not a proletarian. — Moliere

The proletariat are wage-laborers. I'm not sure why you're restricting the usage to those who are "paid enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough."

From CM, footnotes by Engels:

1. By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.

By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.

Emphasis mine.

A better argument might be what some call the managerial class, a class below the owners, being somewhat separate from your average worker despite also being an employee of the owner class. There's a case to be made for that, and I think Michael Albert has written about this. Otherwise I don't see much merit in your re-defining the terms.