Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Jastall]

So you're going to ignore the Native Americans who held claim to the territory before the British too?

Again, it's not a simple matter of 'Right', because your example of British rule isn't 'Right' either. If I am saying there is no right and wrong and you're twisting that to say 'Well that means you're saying British rule was Right' then you missed the whole fucking point didn't you?



If there's no right answer then you shouldn't be supposing any right answer, smart guy.

It belongs to the Natives and the British and the French and bits of it belong to the Spanish as well or perhaps the Mexicans, who also perhaps belong to the Spanish now that one thinks of it. Of course it also belongs to the Americans, since there's no right or wrong and everything is both true and false and it's all just perspective and a sovereign nation's territorial integrity doesn't matter.

Or maybe this is a completely useless argument that I dismissed because the actual causes of the invasion are practical, and not moral at all. But who knows, after all there's no right or wrong.

[Kaleredar]

Well, obviously you and everyone else here does, because his actions are a result of what he's (projected as) thinking what Ukraine is.

The whole reason anyone is in this thread is because of his thoughts being manifested. We all care about his thoughts, because his thoughts become actions, and his actions are dangerous.

And Hitler thought that the Jews were a subhuman race that deserved to be eliminated. “Why” he thought that doesn’t change a single iota about why the holocaust was an atrocity. His belief that the aryans were the superior race does not “justify” his invasion of Europe. The holocaust was wrong and invading Europe was wrong. Why Hitler did it is immaterial to those things being wrong.

And personally no, I don’t care about why Putin thinks anything. He is an invader, plain and simple, who deserves to be beaten back and have his country reminded of its proper place in the world.

[Relapses]

Genocide is acted upon, not inherent in beliefs of territorial belief that I'm discussing here. I'm talking territory disputes, and using Israel/Palestine as an example of such. Yes, there is more nuance to those conflicts, which involve religious extremism and potential cultural/actual genocide, but that's not what I'm talking about when I used the example. If this is the point of contention and confusion, then I will merely say it is a 'bad example for lack of examples specific to the Ukraine/Russia conflict'.

I have also made an example that there are those who believe Taiwan belongs to China. Their belief is in the territory and unification of the people. That inherent belief does not equate to 'genocide', it would have to be acted upon. Same can be said of those who wanted India to regain its independence, and there was certainly high tension that involved riots and violent action during that time.

I guess I'm just bewildered by your insistence on separating actions from beliefs. What do you gain by insisting such a distinction is necessary?

[Iphie]

Kremlin insiders are baffled over why Prigozhin was flying around Russia after his failed uprising: 'He's not a fool'

I mean, they are, at face value, not wrong. We ALL were baffled by it. Doubly so as he's a part of a close circle of the putin fans. (well used to be)

[Triceron]

And Hitler thought that the Jews were a subhuman race that deserved to be eliminated. “Why” he thought that doesn’t change a single iota abput why the holocaust was an atrocity.

Godwin's law in action here, folks.

[Iphie]

Godwin's law in action here, folks.

Godwin's law does not apply if the comparison is apt.

[Makabreska]

Godwin's law in action here, folks.

This is your answer to his argument?

[Triceron]

I guess I'm just bewildered by your insistence on separating actions from beliefs. What do you gain by insisting such a distinction is necessary?

That beliefs shouldn't be inherently discriminated against because they are being represented by wrongful action.

- - - Updated - - -

This is your answer to his argument?

Yes, because I am not talking about the holocaust nor have I made any assertion to defending genocidal beliefs by discussing beliefs concerning territorial disputes.

Ultimately, any discussion can (irrationally) involve comparisons to the holocaust if it progresses far enough. Hell, liking Pineapple on Pizza can be compared to Hitler gassing Jews, it doesn't make it a legitimate point of discussion.

[Kallisto]

I mean, they are, at face value, not wrong. We ALL were baffled by it. Doubly so as he's a part of a close circle of the putin fans. (well used to be)

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Prig wasn't on the plane and turns up a week or so from now calling out Putin's assassination attempt.

[Belize]

Btw, has anyone noticed that this thread doesn't appear in Politics anymore? I only ever see it via Gen-OT and the most recent thread posted in the Politics sub-forum, but if I go into the Politics sub-forum, this thread doesn't exist...? I just have to click on this thread directly from Gen-OT if it's up as the latest Politics thread.

Do you have Yuppie on ignore? Threads by users you have on ignore don't show in the subforums

[Santti]

Godwin's law in action here, folks.

We are at page 1714, talking about the war in Ukraine. Care to make a guess if it has been mentioned before?

Also, I'd like to point out that triggering the law is not a bad thing. It just is, so pointing it out is rather meaningless.

[Belize]

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Prig wasn't on the plane and turns up a week or so from now calling out Putin's assassination attempt.

It's more likely he was offed somewhere else, and the "investigators" just dumped his body amongst the rubble if he wasn't actually on the plane tbh.

[Makabreska]

Yes, because I am not talking about the holocaust nor have I made any assertion to defending genocidal beliefs by discussing beliefs concerning territorial disputes.

Ultimately, any discussion can (irrationally) involve comparisons to the holocaust if it progresses far enough. Hell, liking Pineapple on Pizza can be compared to Hitler gassing Jews, it doesn't make it a legitimate point of discussion.

So, answering to arguments only when it is convenient.

You have convinced no one here to your views, so far.

[Relapses]

That beliefs shouldn't be inherently discriminated against because they are being represented by wrongful action.

If the only way that your belief can be represented is through wrongful action then it absolutely should be discriminated against.

[Triceron]

So, answering to arguments only when it is convenient.

You have convinced no one here to your views, so far.

Well do you believe it is equivalent to the holocaust? If so, shouldn't the UN and NATO do more about it than just sanctions and support?

- - - Updated - - -

If the only way that your belief can be represented is through wrongful action then it absolutely should be discriminated against.

Agreed! Which is why I condemn Putin's actions.

But the belief itself, can it only be represented through wrongful action? I would argue no. There *could be* peaceful ways of resolving territorial disputes, however unlikely the current political situation may be. Saying it can only be represented through wrongful actions implies that all other non-wrongful options have been exhausted, and simply said no other options have actually been tried.

Of course, I'm arguing in principle. We could also look at the history of India trying to obtain independence and all the riots that happened over hundreds of years, and one could imply that the only path to independence was through violent riots (which is what happened historically). That is, until Gandhi took a different approach. I don't consider other options to be exhausted if they merely haven't been explored; even if it's highly unlikely to ever explore it.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I'd like to point out that triggering the law is not a bad thing. It just is, so pointing it out is rather meaningless.

Not meaningless at all. I'm making the statement that I have no interest in derailing the discussion to be about the holocaust.

[Relapses]

Agreed! Which is why I condemn Putin's actions.

But the belief itself, can it only be represented through wrongful action? I would argue no. There *could be* peaceful ways of resolving territorial disputes, however unlikely the current political situation may be. Saying it can only be represented through wrongful actions implies that all other non-wrongful options have been exhausted, and simply said no other options have actually been tried..

How do you know when a belief has surpassed its ability to be represented by anything other than wrongful action? This seems like a weirdly pedantic philosophy to base your entire world view around. Some people have demonstrably dogshit beliefs and those demonstrably dogshit beliefs go hand-in-hand with demonstrably dogshit actions. There's no real benefit in deliberating the "what-ifs" if one of those "what-ifs" is a nuke landing in your backyard.

[Triceron]

How do you know when a belief has surpassed its ability to be represented by anything other than wrongful action? This seems like a weirdly pedantic philosophy to base your entire world view around. Some people have demonstrably dogshit beliefs and those demonstrably dogshit beliefs go hand-in-hand with demonstrably dogshit actions. There's no real benefit in deliberating the "what-ifs" if one of those "what-ifs" is a nuke landing in your backyard.

You don't, which is why these beliefs aren't inherrently right or wrong. They aren't defined by the actions taken in their name (unless we are talking about a specific belief that involves wrongful action to it, which I want to be clear, this is not).

There is always the possibility of inaction.

Someone could hold the wrongful belief of wanting to kill the man who raped their daughter. Their belief (however unjustified or wrong) would not be defined as being right or wrong for simply holding the belief. If they act on it? Yes that could be judged immediately. If they merely hold the grudge? Well that is a subjective thing, and whether they are justified or not for having such 'evil beliefs' is really depending on the eye of the beholder. Some could believe he is justified in feeling that way, and may not see it as inherently evil so long as it's just a thought. Others may believe any evil thoughts are evil and he should work to absolve of himself of them. There's no true 'right' answer though, because it's ultimately subjective.

And if we are talking about current social norms, then yeah it would be considered 'wrong' to have that thought based on our current social standings. We don't encourage kiling people. But that also is a cultural thing, because some cultures (including historically) would promote death or revenge as a form of justice, and that would have been right in their eyes. Even now, the Death Penalty is quite a gray area in determining what is 'Right', of which there is no true answer to.

[Shadowferal]

I mean, they are, at face value, not wrong. We ALL were baffled by it. Doubly so as he's a part of a close circle of the putin fans. (well used to be)

Where was Prigozhin before the crash?

Hmf...I'd wager he wasn't flying at all.

[Relapses]

You don't, which is why these beliefs aren't inherrently right or wrong. They aren't defined by the actions taken in their name (unless we are talking about a specific belief that involves wrongful action to it, which I want to be clear, this is not).

There is always the possibility of inaction.

Someone could hold the wrongful belief of wanting to kill the man who raped their daughter. Their belief (however unjustified or wrong) would not be defined as being right or wrong for simply holding the belief. If they act on it? Yes that could be judged immediately. If they merely hold the grudge? Well that is a subjective thing, and whether they are justified or not for having such 'evil beliefs' is really depending on the eye of the beholder. Some could believe he is justified for feeling that way, others may believe any evil thoughts are evil and he should work to absolve of himself of them. There's no true 'right' answer though.

I feel like this focuses way too much on the utility of one's individual beliefs. Beliefs can be transcribed in words and other people can use those words to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want to with them. When somebody's stated beliefs turn into acts of genocide and imperialist wars it seems rather pointless to look past that and say, "well, that guy's beliefs weren't right or wrong, it was the actions of the people who acted on those beliefs that were wrong!" I mean, I guess I finally understand your perspective here but it reeks of enlightened centrism.

[Kaleredar]

Godwin's law in action here, folks.

Hmm let’s see, a dictator invading a neighboring country believing that he has some right to own it despite

Seems pretty applicable bud.

Thank goodness Europe and the U.S. thought to act and aid Ukraine before Putin was able to accomplish even a fraction of what Hitler did. This is geopolitical reaction to dictators done right.


Also, did you just try and claim that “even though putin’s actions might be wrong, the idea behind them is right” on me? Bitch doesn’t own Ukraine. Ukraine owes Russia nothing. Russia is owed nothing by Ukraine. And it’s eminently apparent Ukraine does not want to be a part of Russia.

I have no idea why people think Russia has any say on the alliances or internal workings of Ukraine. That point is absurdity, and anyone thinking that can have any subsequent “ideas” safely dismissed.