That beliefs shouldn't be inherently discriminated against because they are being represented by wrongful action.
- - - Updated - - -
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.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-08-24 at 08:56 PM.

Sometimes, the light of the moon is a key to other spaces. I've found a place where, for a night or two, the streets curve in unfamiliar ways. If I walk here, I might find insight, or I might be touched by madness.
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 - - -
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 - - -
Not meaningless at all. I'm making the statement that I have no interest in derailing the discussion to be about the holocaust.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-08-24 at 09:10 PM.
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.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-08-24 at 09:28 PM.
Where was Prigozhin before the crash?
Hmf...I'd wager he wasn't flying at all.
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.
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.
Last edited by Kaleredar; 2023-08-24 at 09:47 PM.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
I'm not saying there can't be wrong beliefs either.
But let's be clear, Putin hasn't outright stated Genocide, so I think the immediate comparisons to him having Genocidal beliefs would be a step in the wrong direction. His actions aren't being based on Genocidal beliefs, it merely extreme action motivated by a more common belief that has more neutral intentions. And of course, I am aware it could be a front, could be an excuse, but that is still quite a different situation than someone who literally speaks out on having genocidal beliefs, which we also have in history.
Whether he personally has genocidal beliefs or not is quite subjective right now (with most of the forum obviously leaning towards him being absolute evil). Me personally, I understand the situation in the region, and I don't see this as a clearcut 'Genocide', more than it is a rather complex dispute about territory and conflict of political values, much like most conflicts tend to be.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-08-24 at 09:50 PM.
I'm sorry man but Bucha would respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you just said.