As did my country also belong to Russia. Until it didn't, when we gained independence. Just like Ukraine got it's independence and Russia did recognize the independence of Ukraine and it's borders. Until it didn't anymore. And that's the whole issue here with Russia. The nah... these countries around me are "artificial"! — ssu

I expected you would have used Finland as an example. But it is obvious that the example of the Finnish are very far away from the Ukrainian, or speaking frankly, 'Kyi' or the 'Kievan Rus'. Oleg set himself up as prince in Kyiv, and declared that it should be the "mother of Rus' cities."

I did some quick research on the history of your beautiful country - I wish one day I can visit it - and the tribes were always ruling on different territories, until the unstoppable expansion of the Russian Empire. Nonetheless, if the following information is not biassed or mistaken, the Russian Empire considered the Duchy of Finland as 'autonomous': In 1809, as a result of the Finnish War, Finland became part of the Russian Empire as the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland. Alexander I did not want the Grand Duchy to be a constitutional monarchy but the governmental institutions born during the Swedish rule offered him a more efficient form of government than the absolute monarchy in Russia. This evolved into a high level of autonomy by the end of the 19th century. https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?rev_t=20151206184816&url=http%3A%2Fweb.eduskunta.fi%2FResource.phx%2Fparliament%2Faboutparliament%2Fpresentation%2Fhistory.htx#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

We can say that Finland was a province of the vast Russian Empire and both sides were aware of the differences amongst the other. Yet, Ukraine is fully similar to Russia, and they were 'born' with the same characteristics: language, religion and culture. Thus, the ethnicity. While the Finnish people have always been a Baltic ethnic group, Ukrainians and Russians come from the same group: Slavs.

The following map is very well drawn, and we can see how Finland has always been different from Russia. While Ukraine - or at least the modern Crimea and Donetsk - was part of Russian origins, clearly.

I agree with you, except for the following statement:

It seems to me we might say that imperialists, like the Russians at the moment, want to go into someone else's house, take it over, and tell them what to do and how to do it. The West, on the other hand, mostly just says, if you want to play with us, there are rules.... — tim wood

Ukraine is not some one's else house. They don't even claim all their vast territory but three important provinces: Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. These three 'municipal dumas' have always belonged to Russia, and they have been managed by Russian authorities since the Russian empire.
[...] Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Odesa, Riga, and the Polish cities of Warsaw and Łódź. These elected their delegates to the Duma directly, and though their votes were divided (on the basis of taxable property) in such a way as to give the advantage to wealth, each returned the same number of delegates. State Duma (Russian Empire) Look at the following map of the Russian Empire when they fought against the Ottomans. It is obvious that those territories belonged to Russia, and they were recognised internationally as part of their vast nation. It is written in the treaties:



One of the main errors committed in the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the lack of precision in 'drawing' the new maps for the new republics. Ukraine considered those territories as a subdivision of them, while the Russian Federation stated that they were 'Federal subjects'. More precisely the Russian Constitution says: "1. The Russian Federation includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation: [...] Republic of Crimea http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-04.htm

In 1774, the Ottoman Empire was defeated by Catherine the Great with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca making the Tatars of the Crimea politically independent. Catherine the Great's incorporation of the Crimea in 1783 into the Russian Empire increased Russia's power in the Black Sea area.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991 most of the peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea, although in 1995 the Republic was forcibly abolished by Ukraine with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority. A 1997 treaty partitioned the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, allowing Russia to continue basing its fleet in Sevastopol, with the lease extended in 2010. https://books.google.es/books?id=i1C2MHgujb4C&pg=PA194&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, 'it was meant to be put into action', but everything remained in theory, and as you said, each country had their own 'version' of Marxism. I don't deny that they are based or influenced by Marxism, but it is clear that those countries hardly put it in practice.

and (Good points ssu, I was thinking the same, sort of).

Firstly, none Communist country has really applied Marxism into practice. They were countries influenced by or based by Karl Marx, but they hardly understood what he meant. Some nations, like Cuba or North Korea, followed up the path of their respective dictators, creating and establishing a self-basis of Communism.

Nonetheless, it is true that China is a good example of a successful nation. Thanks to Deng Xiaoping revolution in the 1990's, China has been becoming one of the main countries of the world. I think they were very clever, because, as ssu pointed out, they are always adapting their system to new challenges. Yet, I do not know if we should consider them as Marxists, because their main role and leader is Maoism. We can conclude that while Western or Eastern European Communism has failed dramatically, Chinese Maoism remains.

I wish @Hailey and @guanyun could log in and express their opinion on this.

Comment? — tim wood

I am not accusing you of 'cancelling' Russian culture. I just wrote those paragraphs because I thought it was unfair to mix up things. 'Karamazov Brothers' and a normal/regular Russian citizen is not guilty of Russian oligarchy. The latter doesn't represent the real Russia and it is unfair. To be honest, I think I have sympathy with them because I understand what it feels like living in a country with a dictatorial background. My point is that there is an abyss between the Russian Kremlin and the citizenship of Moscow or the rest of the Oblasts. Most of the statistics - which come from the Western media - showing that most of the Russians support this war are twisted and these are not reliable to me.

On the other hand, I agree with you in the point that the Russian natural resources have always been poorly managed. Since 1991, the oligarchy members are the only ones who make profits on it. Then, this causes a dysfunctional social structure. The Russian middle-class is not perceiving everything that they deserve. But it is important to highlight that the middle-class of every Western country has experienced a decrease in their purchase power because of Zelensky's childish behaviour of not allowing us to buy Russian natural resources. I wonder whether they will pay us back one day (as well as Japan and Germany did after WWII), or if our budget went to unclaimed funds...

Nonetheless, what about the unfair financial block from the Western world? This attitude only harms the Russian citizens we are debating about, and has zero effects on the Russian oligarchy. So, I can't see the point in not having financial relationships with them. Even with all the blocks from the Western world, they are still the 9th economy of the world and we - the European hypocrites - still buy them oil and gas. Amazing! I am jealous of the resistance of the Russian state.

I'm interested in posting the following words here, in this thread, because it was the first time I have read them. I do not want to forget those.

Trifle: slightly, (used as an adverb. 'She seemed a trifle anxious').

Whimsically: ​in an unusual or slightly silly way that people find either funny or annoying.

Haughtily: in an unfriendly way that shows other people that you think that you are better than them.

Commandingly: in a position of authority that allows you to give formal orders.

Tormentedly: to make somebody suffer very much.

Maybe I will post more interesting adverbs or words which I would find in the books I read. I understand that maybe you all see them as normal and not so amazing, but for me, they are spectacular because those are taught in school. :sparkle:

But as you seem to be an apologist for things Russia, — tim wood

Reading and having an admiration for Russian writers, is an apology to Russia. Wow! We are living in the era of stupidity and 'cancel culture'. Yet, I would like to highlight my words again: 'Karamazov brothers' or 'The Don' will remain in the passage of the years, because these are pieces of culture and not your brainwashed propaganda. According to your own basis, I bet you never read Don Quixote because it comes from a bloody imperialist country as well, right? Pathetic.

On the other hand, I will try to answer to your following fallacious assessment: 'Arguably Russia should be the richest country on the planet and its citizens enjoying the highest standard of living. Why isn't it; why aren't they?'

I do not know where you get the premise that Russia should be the richest country and its citizens the happiest. But I will not hesitate in using data to contradict your position. I will use a comparison between my country and Russia. I act with good faith and humbly, at least. You will be amazed.

GDP: $2.36 trillion (Spain) / $4.77 trillion (Russia)

GDP per capita: $31,223 (Spain) / $33,263 (Russia)

Unemployment ratio: 11.6% (Spain) / 5.2% (Russia)

Suicide ratio: 6.1 per 100,000 people. (Spain) / 10.7 per 100,000 people.

Well, showing those facts, it is proven that Russia is a better country than some - at least than mine -. The suicide ratio is high but is even higher in Spain if we compare the proportion of numbers of citizens.

When you use the word 'pretend' do you mean 'attempt'?
I thought it might be a 'false friend', so checked it out: — Amity

I didn't know it was a false friend! Wow, this is so interesting to me. I am learning a lot ,thanks to this thread and interacting with you, Amity. Yes, I was referring to "attempt" not "pretend", which are two different concepts.

Pretend: 'to behave in a particular way, in order to make other people believe something that is not true'
Attempt: an act of trying to do something, especially something difficult, often with no success.

I was referring to the latter, but I used the wrong word. I beg your pardon. I feel ashamed of myself when I don't use grammar properly.

And there are many more examples. I bet you've met a few! — Amity

Yes, I know one that is a classic: Anuncio/publicidad means 'advertisement', and not 'announcement' (anunciar), to announce. :smile:

If I am not wrong, you were off from this forum for months. I recommend you stay away again, because wasting the space and time of others is one of the worst things ever. Are you capable of reading three paragraphs, or do you just stay on the surface of everything? Answer to yourself, because I will not waste my time on you. 

I didn't pretend to find the 'perfect' answer, but I just admit that I do not see myself as capable as of answering those complex questions.

On the other hand, regarding your quote from Japanese literature, Yes, I feel more comfortable with this topic and I can provide answers with knowledge.

Japanese literature is well known for being ambiguous, and I fully agree with the author of the paper in Britannica. There was a big debate amongst modern Japanese authors whether they should be writing in this technique because they were receiving a lot of influence from Western authors, who are very different from them, obviously. To be honest, if a haiku is not ambiguous, you kill the haiku. The ambiguity is the main essence of these poems, and fortunately modern Japanese haijin have not given up on this. Yet, I understand that it is a big and complex task for translators, because how do you translate this ambiguity into Western languages? It reminds me of Sofia Coppola's film: Lost in translation.

I think you are well-placed to answer at least one of the questions in the OP: — Amity

I think not. I am not capable to do so and @hypericin just answered you. I alude to what he states.

On the other hand, I wonder what you refer to as 'old meaning'. I am lost here. I do not understand what you mean by such a concept or idea.

But would that still be 'enough' for you? — Amity

Well, this is a good question, because there is not always enough for the seek for knowledge. I think I was referring to a technical context/idea. Trying to answer this interesting topic, but not having 'enough' background to explore its nature. I must assume that I need to read more books related to philosophy, because most of the time I only read Japanese literature. This is not something I regret, but it is obvious that I have lost some information on other topics. Maybe I should be more paradigmatic.

How does a mess of philosophical theories help? When there are other more practical disciplines? — Amity

You are right!

What would be 'enough knowledge'? — Amity

There are more users who would have better and more precise answers than me, because they have a background in Linguistics and Philosophy, something that I don't.

It seems that it is more than 'just a personal opinion'. You have used your knowledge about Philosophy and its Concepts logically to make 'correct' premises. Do the scare quotes around 'correct' mean they are 'provisional' assumptions? Are there only 2 views/theories of 'meaning'? Perhaps, yes, if the spotlight zooms in on — Amity

I think more than premises, they are 'tools' for me. I personally believe that this OP is understood using Philosophy of Language and some authors, as Steven Pinker explains this very well, or at least, I liked it a lot. Nonetheless, I am aware that some members would disagree about the way I see and understand 'meaning', because it is something that maybe goes beyond than just boxing in categories.

One of the main things which pisses me off the most, is the way the Western world is cancelling Russia on literally everything: from economics to the arts.

The following week starts the Nobel laureates ceremony. I think it is a beautiful and vivid place to appreciate interesting and intelligent people. Well, as a reminder, the Nobel Foundation cancelled the Russian ambassador, and this means that there will not be Russian laureates, although it is a country full of intelligent and cultural people...
Nobel Foundation reverses decision to invite Russia to prize ceremony.

On the other hand, can you imagine a world without Dostoyevski or Shólojov? It is a disgrace the efforts to cancel Russian culture. There are some universities - like Milan - or symposiums which avoid Russian participants. It is pathetic. For example, there was a symposium about Dostoevsky in Nagoya (Japan) and the Russian specialists were cancelled. :roll: https://elpais.com/opinion/2023-09-04/dostoievski-y-ucrania-en-japon.html

Although sooner or later Ukraine will be irrelevant to most people, the 'Karamazov brothers' will remain. Culture is above economics and politics!

Your approach is to decide which category a philosophical concept should be boxed.
You seem to suggest that this discussion (see underlined) should rest in a subcategory:
Philosophy of Language. — Amity

Exactly, Amity. But boxing this OP in the 'Philosophy of Language' category is just a personal opinion, which helps me to understand it. I do not pretend to say if the OP is in the right or wrong direction of debating. I don't even have enough knowledge on the matter! :smile:

The Australian marsupial can pass up to 100 deposits of poop a night and they use the piles to mark territory. This also explains how the universe was created in the first place. The original poop is called the "big bang".

The shape helps to stop the poop rolling away (there is nothing worse than having your fundamental unit of the universe roll away). — Agree-to-Disagree

:up:

Why not multiple kinds of shapes? Why must there be one fundamental building block instead of multiple ones equally fundamental? — Ø implies everything

Because the author of this thread considered the universe as an individual entity of existence, and not a multiple of divided shapes. I partially agree with his argument, because we would have multiple universes otherwise. This would lead us to multiple realities, and there would be chaos. Don't you think?

That's what I understood from the author's argument, sort of.

I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain what you mean? — Amity

Before trying to understand a concept in philosophy, I think about which category the concept should be. Using this 'logic', it helps me to make the 'correct' premises. Something like meaning and concepts can be seen in two different views: epistemology (if it is a form of knowledge) or metaphysics (if it depends on the truth/reality of our knowledge) and more precisely, I would include this exchange in a subcategory: Philosophy of Language or "metalinguistics".

Steven Pinker, in his book 'Words and Rules, The Ingredients of Language', states that grammar - thus, if we can include meaning inside this linguistic category - has two key components: rote learning ("words") and innate rules ("rules"). The fact that I enjoyed reading his book the most is the debate amongst experts on which category the meaning should be: Is it a word or a rule? I agree with him that there must be "rules" behind all the way down. And 'meaning' is included in this category because it helps us to analyse language and vocabulary.

What is the meaning of the usages of "meaning" that unites them? Is there a unitary concept they share? — hypericin

I asked myself the same question a while ago. I did a brief search on Google or Friesian, but it was difficult to find answers because I was wondering if these questions were part of metaphysics or epistemology. Well, it turns out that it is a matter of metaphysics, and specifically speaking, "A Kant-Friesian" approach. I fully recommend you to read this. I guess you will find some answers: Meaning

Basically, the problem of the nature of meaning has been one of the main debates in philosophy. This is why I was wondering how to understand it, because it has both epistemological and metaphysical theories. My only contribution might be the above link, but I will be reading the replies in your thread because there are users who have more knowledge on this matter, and they would dive in (maybe).

September 28th.

Interesting! :up:

Human or AI? — praxis

it’s a coin toss. I’m gonna go with AI — simplyG

I am going to go with human then. Let's see which side it lands.

Your mind is a good one and you share your thoughts generously. Thank you. — Amity

I can only fully appreciate your kindness, Amity. Your mind and thoughts are very comfortable, and you always try to make us feel better with ourselves. I like to see that you are still flowing around TPF - although the literary contest finished a month ago - because you often leave TPF for months... :confused:

The flow seems to come and go. But it is more likely to arise if you already have the practice and experience of regular writing. No matter whether it's perfect - it's vital. A physical and mental necessity. — Amity

Well said, Amity. I have been stuck in my imaginative process. I have been writing some stuff, but I didn't like it at all. This doesn't mean that I erased what I wrote, because it helps me to see what I am missing. I agree with @Vera Mont, flow comes and goes, and sometimes it takes a lot to catch it again.
Yet, I love to write. Whenever I finish a paragraph, although it can be mediocre, I feel good with myself.

Arms and the man; Candida by George Bernard Shaw.

Playwrights, one of the best of this literary genre.

The Russian threat doesn’t consist in attacking Spain out of the blue yesterday. But in wanting to regain its sphere of influence in Easter Europe which then will have an impact on International power balance. — neomac

I agree. Nonetheless, I still don't know why it is dangerous to switch the power balance often. Every powerful and rich nation tends to impose its way of seeing things. The U.S. did it after WWII, and Russia did it as well in the Soviet era. This is the kind of world we live in, some nations need to be under the umbrella of others, depending on the values and principles they have in common. Yet, it is important to highlight one important fact here. You mentioned my country and I promise you that if my nation got attacked by Morocco - for example - nobody would care. Yes, NATO would defend us, but it is just protocol like. If we disappear as a whole tomorrow, nobody would care honestly. But why does Washington care that much about Ukraine? Again, I am sceptic. There is something I can't see and it is hidden. So, there is hypocrisy defending some nations and others don't.

Besides geopolitics is all about security dilemmas, so if one discounts the arguments behind certain choices, it's always "paranoia", INCLUDING Putin's paranoia of NATO encirclement. — neomac

True, but while the security dilemmas of Russia are very well argued, Washington's not. It is not the same as letting Ukraine join NATO, which is close to Russian frontiers, as having some rockets in Cuba. The U.S. created - pretty well - a big international fence with the aim to get their enemies as far as possible. And they accomplished it, because most of the wars have always taken part far away from their frontiers: WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, etc.

So don’t get so excited over nothing. — neomac

Bollocks! That's what the puppet Zelensky should have in mind!

I can’t decide for the Ukrainians which world they want to be part of, nor their motives to do so.
They have chosen the West (and it’s not the first time) and they are ready to pay for it.
It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Are you aware that the so called "Russian threat" is only in Washington's paranoia? If you were from Finland, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, etc. I would respect your argument. But, it is obvious that Putin is not that stupid to attack NATO members.

Dude, I was referring to the current war. — neomac

No, you didn't: The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past...,
1776 is pretty far from our current year, indeed!

It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Your arguments are based on the false premise that in the Western world there are no threats, which, of course, is completely wrong. I think that before giving lessons to the East we should have to look ourselves in the mirror, and act humbly. If you think that a Russian commander is more dangerous for your security than some psychopath with the right to purchase weapons, you are not experiencing reality, and it is clear that you are living under the lies of Western propaganda. I see and experience a lot of threats in daily life which do not come from Russia precisely: Inflation, scarcity, unemployment, insecurity, political instability, etc. But, didn't you pretend to defend that the Western world is awesome?

Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. — neomac

They want to be funded by the Western world, which is different. Because speaking plainly and frankly, they are part of the East world. They no longer want to be funded by Russia for reasons that remain unclear to me.

Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell: — neomac

I can't take you seriously if you believe in those statistics.

Nobody has invaded Russia proper. — neomac

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during the Second World War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

True, it says so.

But, according to some district courts, such a section is unconstitutional:

“[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional. The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right. In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.
Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….” https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2022/09/26/district-court-decision-questions-everything-in-18-usc-922-update-for-september-26-2022/

So, let's see what the judges decide regarding this issue, and not some vacuous journalists. :smile:

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO). — Tzeentch

Oh, yes! You are right, I completely forgot the unconditional requirements for joining the EU is ceding part of the sovereignty.

But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people. — Tzeentch

I have sympathy - and most importantly, empathy - with Russian folks too. I think they are in a difficult situation, because being a regular citizen on the side which everyone hates is messy. I wish them the best for the future because it is obvious that Putin will not last in power forever. Sooner or later, he will die, and we will see what will happen in post-Putin Russia. I wish we had all learnt from our mistakes, and we wouldn't treat them with superiority. This is what happened under the Yeltsin administration. He was the puppet of Washington and everybody treated him as a drunk clown, soiling Russia's dignity.

I did brief research on this legal matter. I think we should make a difference between the two concepts: conviction (to decide and state officially in court that somebody is guilty of a crime) and indictment (an official statement accusing somebody of a crime).

Donald Trump has not been convicted yet, so he can purchase a weapon if we interpret the Federal Law plainly.

Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons... ATF Identify Prohibited Persons.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I fully agree with you.

On the other hand, just for an addendum to your comment, I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done.

It would be a great act of hypocrisy of Western institutions if we let Ukraine be part of everything unconditionally. In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances.

Yeah, it was pathetic. What I cannot understand is the big efforts of some politicians and @neomac to deny Ukraine's Nazi past - or even present - arguing that Putin is just a psychopath. Sooner or later, the truth emerges, and we can see how Ukraine really is. But, meanwhile, the funding is still going up in a country where their identity is blurred, and they don't even know what their (real) expectations are in the long term.

I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians — neomac

Ask to yourself: Are the families of the Western world responsible?

Secondly, why don't we care about the rest of the world as well as we do about Ukraine? What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do these ring a bell to you?

Thirdly, what about Russian citizens? They are not guilty of having Putin as President running their country. You are speaking about deaths, injuries and rapes. But these are suffered by the people of the other "side" too, but we do not care because our politicians are hypocritical. In this stupid war, it seems that there is only one victim and the rest "deserve" to be dead and isolated economically from the rest of the world. What a terrible mistake to not allow Russia to express themselves better. The aggression of Putin is not justified, as well as should not be disrespect for everything related to Russia either.

It was cultural and identitarian too. — neomac

Interesting. You can fight for your American identity and cultural values, but hey! We do not allow Russians to defend their Cyrillic heritage! Russians bad and Putin a dictator! :roll:

And yet American fought against the British empire for their independence, despite "the same pillars of each nation". — neomac

True, but both nations agree on the fact that they are in the Western world, and share the same language and interests. The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war.

Sure, Zelensky has definitely failed with you. So disappointing. Now I'm gonna pick his ears next time I see him. — neomac

Nah, we all are already busy paying the high costs and inflation, while our public budget is feeding them. :roll:

Yes, I can figure it out somehow. Well, for most ordinary people, they are easily confused with Russians because they share the same pillars of each nation: culture, language (Cyrillic) and religion (Orthodox church). So, the constant efforts of Zelensky to not be compared to the Russian spectrum is, more or less, vane.

I agree with the first link on the fact that Ukraine's identity is messy.

Good data and reliable information, thanks for sharing it, and I have been reading your posts since for the last months because you provide solid facts. :up:

But look at the data, its science! — Merkwurdichliebe

He doesn't like science and evidence which cannot back up his fanaticism. The only thing he does against counter-arguments or people who disagree with him is insulting:

Good god you’re pathetic.

That’s just a stupid strawman.

It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes.

, etc.

Thanks for clarifying the context, mate :up:

From the article, the cartoon received negative criticism from around the world. — Amity

You are right. It has received criticism from other Muslim countries which are friends with Turkey, for example: Argelia. This country is not a big "friend" of France's either.

This thread makes me feel nostalgic! I remember sharing cartoons with you when I was a very recent member of TPF. I missed its existence when it is pretty good, indeed.

I agree with you. The new cartoon from Charlie Hebdo is very offensive. The people of Turkey are not guilty nor responsible for such a natural disaster. I understand that political cartoonists need freedom of speech to do their work, and to show off criticising politicians.

But in this case, it is different: I see that two normal people appear with a satirical phrase. I think it is hurtful without any cause or reason. If Erdoğan were the one who was drawn in the cartoon, the Turkish people would have interpreted it differently. More than attack to their victims, a clever criticism on Erdoğan's management regarding the effects of the earthquake.