I think part of the special treatment came from significant credit he had built as a poster at the original PF and as a mod here. Someone with a better memory can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him being so strident in years past.

As someone else pointed out, his focus moving from philosophy to politics marked a significant shift in his tone.

Feels similar to when TGW got banned. Obviously very intelligent people, but for some reason they felt the need to suicide by mod.

I'll miss Streetlight's posts. Even some of the angry ones. There is plenty to be rageful about in this world and his vitriol resonated at times.

So what's the solution, revolution? In this case I believe the solution is evolution, not revolution, and not the ex-nihilo creation of some perfect political paradise out of a void. — FreeEmotion

I'd like to see this^ question answered.

I cited this earlier in the thread, worth reiterating in this context that America has form in this, it's right out of their standard playbook

My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians
— US envoy James Jeffrey — Isaac

↪Isaac You don't even need to cite Syria. The monstrous piece of shit that is Hillary Clinton already suggested it in the context of this war: — StreetlightX

Yeah, uh, that's generally how proxy wars work. How is it "monstrous" to make your enemies' military objectives harder/impossible by supporting the people they're fighting against? Your outrage at this strategy pretends that Russia is not the aggressor and it's poor old Putin being picked-on by the west again. The west obviously doesn't have squeaky-clean hands in most of this, but to pretend that Putin is just an unfortunate defender of Russia who was goaded into these violent campaigns by NATO and is undeserving of the outrage and vitriol currently aimed at him is insane.

even though he declares ‘decommunization’ to be among his aims in Ukraine.

Are we supposed to take seriously a journalist who takes Putin's stated motivations at face value when the Kremlin has been calling white black and up down for years? I guess Russia must also be there to free the Ukrainians from Nazis and drug addicts too?

I sincerely hope you and Isaac are at least being paid for this propaganda.

The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it. — counterpunch

What a disgusting admission.

unnecessary cruelty — counterpunch

There are actual and potential workarounds to animal suffering and you are dismissing them.

All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being.
— David Pearce

In your anti-natalist opinion! — counterpunch

No, it's literally not an opinion. It is a scientific fact. You might be comfortable with the odds, but genetic blending has risks whether via natural or bioengineered means.

1.04

obligation to help. — Isaac

Is one ethically obligated to help any and all in need? Is simple awareness enough or is it based on proximity? What level of need is sufficient for this obligation to occur?

There is a difference between ethically virtuous actions and actions that are obligatory.

This whole thing is a great big trolley problem.

Pull the lever (Biden). Don't pull the lever (Trump). How many people are on the tracks in front of either? It certainly seems like there are more on the Trump side.

Do we have time to build another track?

The fear is that a handful of populous states could, through an exercise of federal power, overrule issues states see as their job. — Rank Amateur

Again, it's one of two options. There are no other choices. The less-populous states get their balance from the senate and congress.

The base debate at the creation of the US was the role/power of the the Central government in relation to the power of the individual states. The creation of the electoral college was in relation to this. The less populated states feared that the heavily populated states could dominate a popular election and thereby impose undo power on the less populated states. The electoral college was a way to mitigate that imbalance. — Rank Amateur

You're stuck with either tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. I'll take the majority.

This thread won't be speculative much longer. My expectations are calibrated for disappointment.

What do you do for work? How do you have so much time to read? Are you just a better steward of time than the average person? You make me feel like the lazy procrastinator I am.

Blessedly, no. And even if I did I wouldn't try and ween them off their belief, which would just be a recipe for disaster. — StreetlightX

If you were surrounded by Christian friends and family as I am, you would know that much of the time the conversation is started by them--most likely out of concern for my eternal well-being. It helps to know what you're talking about in those cases.

I think you're mistaken about those conversations being a recipe for disaster. I've had many debates with serious religious people in my life and none of them have ended badly. Those conversations don't often lead to people changing their mind, but if those conversations aren't had then even less people will change their minds than do already. I am personally grateful to all of the people in my life who planted little seeds of doubt in me when I was a believer. It can happen.

Do you have many serious and religious friends or family?

That quote is cute, but it is quite detached from the common belief in an almighty god who intervenes in the affairs of mankind.

Not enough indifference. — StreetlightX

I understand this position, but I don't think it is very practical because most people in this world still believe there is a god and think it is a perfectly legitimate question. To a theist, this just comes off as arrogant and condescending. They will not come to the conclusion that you are wiser than they, and that they should just give up on the idea as well. They will think your arrogance has blinded you and that you are only uninformed on the subject.

That attitude would be absurd towards many things like Santa Claus or unicorns, but that's only because nobody really believes in them. If you have any interest in people changing their beliefs to better reflect reality, it is often necessary to understand what they believe and challenge them on their own terms.

Like I said though, I understand the sentiment. I sometimes regret the amount of time I've spent studying popular fairy tales.

"We could have been investigating this earlier, but because we didn't we aren't going to now." -Grassley

It's interesting that depending on what side of the political fence someone is on seems to determine how these allegations are viewed. From the left, this is evidence of a disgusting pattern of behavior, and from the right, this is evidence that some people will go to great lengths to stop Republican nominees.

Who's right? It's hard to tell the difference between genuine belief or disbelief versus political expediency these days. Maybe we can never know because of the amount of time between the alleged events and now. I will say the Reps have shown themselves to be especially slimey these last few years so that counts against them somewhat.

Despite there likely being little evidence to corroborate these allegations, a full investigation is the only sane course of action. We should respect the institution of the Supreme Court enough to do that.

For my view, that would be one of the best possible outcomes.

What is the important point, here? For you it's the cheating. But you're the one who calls it that. Until the aggrieved party speaks, there is no aggrieved party - unless it's you! No cheating has occurred until the "cheatee" calls it. And when that happens, you're out of the picture. — tim wood

The cheated person in this scenario doesn't even have an opportunity to be the aggrieved party by your standard. All I would be offering is the cheated person a chance to decide for themselves if they are aggrieved or not. Implicit in your point is that there is a chance the cheated person might not be aggrieved if they found out. So I intend on letting them make that decision on their own.

You apparently are concerned with the behaviour, but unless you know all the details of the why of it, then you don't actually know what it is. And I have twice excepted crime; and no, slavery is not an issue, nor assault and battery. Try this. Find a wise neutral party, and solicit an opinion there. Clearly you/re only interest here is to promote your own point of view. — tim wood

Once again, I do not need to know the totality of their behavior to know that one person has cheated on the other. I have not brought up crime or slavery in this discussion other than in the OP to illustrate that there are times where one is morally obligated to do something. You are making a legal distinction which isn't at all relevant in my view.

I came here for the wise neutral party as I am/was conflicted by this.

You have completely missed the point. Your interference is at the level of an involuntary short-arm inspection — tim wood

In this hypothetical you are forcing a physical action upon me, which would be assault or kidnapping. Providing me with the information is a much more fitting analogy.

But it is good to hear you're so ethically minded. No doubt there are many initiatives in your community and beyond where you apply your energy for the good of all. What are some of those? — tim wood

Why the animosity? I never claimed to be an ethical hero, nor would being an ethical hero change anything in this case. Or would it?

Indeed they do. Perhaps I want to spare my partner the sad and humiliating truth that I have come to find her unexciting, if not repulsive. Perhaps she finds me so, and we have had no physical relations for years. Perhaps apart from this, we get on well and are happy together. Perhaps both of us are cheaters sparing each other's feelings as best we can. — unenlightened

I think all of this is very interesting and I'm certain many couples feel this way. That said, dishonesty need not be the standard in these situations. I don't think it's utopian to hope that the world can move to a place where people understand this can and does happen, and that we could be honest and caring enough that we allow each other to make the decisions that are best for our individual and collective lives.
Maybe you're right and they both find each other mutually repulsive; should both of them live lives of dishonesty and desperation because of it? Wouldn't it be better for one or both parties to own up to their feelings and get on with their lives, allowing the other to do so also? I know I painting very complex relationships with a simple brush, but social norms can change over time and these things could become easier, so long as we allow them to.

How strongly do you believe in this prospective act if you are not willing to claim it personally, by name? — Bitter Crank

I said it somewhere earlier that I cannot identify myself because how I found out would become immediately clear and would damage other relationships. I would have zero qualms coming forward under my own name in this case.

I see. I could see that coming from the cheater, but seems less likely from the cheated. Either way, I am relegated to informing anonymously if I choose to do so in this case.

"I feel..," "I am,.." "I feel,..." "I think,.." "I suppose,.." and again, "I feel." Do you see a pattern here? — tim wood

Do you really need me to rephrase all of those reasons in a less subjective way for you to allow the conversation to continue?

No! 180 degrees wrong. The categorical imperative is an exercise in reason, and not an easy exercise. And you appear to be completely confused about any distinction between public and private concerns. — tim wood

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
What reason would I will something? What universal basis could there be for my willing something?

This speaks for itself. — tim wood

When I wrote that I knew you would probably point it out, and in doing so imply I'm being a meddlesome child who likes to get in the mix of other's affairs(no pun intended). I think that is because you are confusing their relationship and the potential outcomes of my informing the cheated with my decision to inform.

Some good is conceivable; you don't get credit for that. For pain and damage, that's all yours. — tim wood

I see it in exactly the opposite light. Any pain or damage would be the responsibility of the cheater. It was their actions that crossed the line and it is their actions that would determine whether the relationship ends or mends. At no point could the cheater say, "Well, all of this is the informer's fault! If only you'd stayed oblivious life would be peachy!" I am only allowing the wronged party a chance to make decisions based upon reality.

I'm concerned about you. I think I should come over and inspect that all is as it should be. (You don't get a say in the matter.) That seem right to you? What's the difference between yours and my shoulds. — tim wood

You could send me an email, or even a message here, informing me of the potential ills of my unclean penis. It's entirely up to me what I do with that information. You would be in no way imposing on me and I would probably just disregard what you said.
My should is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is stating the facts on the ground. Nothing more.

And, I'm guessing the informers are mainly young and never-married men — tim wood

I've been married for a decade.

I think chatterbears and I are on the same page, or at least I'm on the same page as chatterbears.

Truth for truth's sake? But no, because you want to be anonymous, and hide your own part. In my book, I call that hypocrisy. — unenlightened

My anonymity is not for my sake but for the sake of those in the chain of information that do not want to be involved. It would become clear immediately if I came in my own name. I would have zero problem with

Really? My distinction was that at best you had only shallow, partial knowledge. But you seem to think you know it all. Do you know it all? — tim wood

How much knowledge is sufficient? How would I know if I had sufficient knowledge? I don't intend on taking a skeptic's stance on the matter. I don't think I need to know the ins and outs of their relationship. I know of a serious event, or series of events, that I think the other party should become aware.

To the first, all I can say is, grow up! The existence of a personal moral code is not by itself a warrant for anything, much less imposing it anywhere. — tim wood

I might have used the wrong term when I typed 'moral code'. Let me rephrase it by saying if I intend to act ethically, and I am convinced a particular ethical framework is the best way to do so, and this particular ethical framework indicates that I should act in a manner where I inform the cheated, then in this instance I ought to inform the cheated.
If you think this is somehow childish, I'd like to know how. Part of growing up is learning to navigate complex problems, sometimes ethical problems. We are all walking around with an innate set of ethical views, but sometimes our intuitions about a specific problem will be ambiguous. In these cases It's probably best to see what the different ethical views on the matter are and why. This is not me trying to justify a forgone conclusion, but rather I'm trying to look at the problem from diverse perspectives.

The problem arises when the underlying reason is not fully laid out or is inaccessible. Should, in that case, becomes a shorthand, a code, that obscures and even hides the reasoning behind the imperative, and thus concealed becomes vicious. So the question is, why, exactly and explicitly, do you think you're obliged to reveal what you think you know. Why even, exactly and explicitly, do you feel a need to go there? — tim wood

The underlying reasons are 1) I feel a fairly strong sense that someone ought to inform the cheated 2) I am somebody 3) I feel strongly that I would like to be told if I were cheated on 4) I think the truth is almost always preferable to a lie, even when in the short term the lie looks more appealing. I suppose a fifth reason could be my feeling of astonishment that nobody else in this chain of information seems to feel this way.

And because this is TPF, let's visit Kant. He says that the maxim of your action should be such that it could be universal law, that people are to be treated as ends and not used as means, and that we all should act in such a way that our action tends to a creation of a kingdom of ends. In short, by acting you're saying that what you do to others, others can do to you. If then you speak, why do you speak? And for whom do you speak? . — tim wood

I think the categorical imperative lands on the inform side. Would I rather live in a kingdom of truth or lies? Should justice be thwarted or encouraged? I don't subscribe to Deontology, but I think the answer is clear enough. The categorical imperative still relies on someone's intuition about the world they'd like to live in, so it could just be my initial intuition.

I tend to defer to consequentialism. In this case, it's not perfectly clear which decision would have a better outcome, but once again my intuition makes me think that the harm to their relationship in the short term would be the broken egg that makes a future omelette.

Even from a strictly utilitarian view I think I should inform. At present, I am suffering with the knowledge, the cheated will not like the knowledge itself but will be happy to know it, and the cheater currently must take great pains to keep the initial lie by fabricating many more.

Yes, and that is morally suspect, because it relies on a judgement of the morality of the parties. Who knows, perhaps the cheater is trying to escape an abusive and controlling relationship? One cannot assume the equality of other things. — unenlightened

From the outside, they had a good marriage. He was formerly a youth pastor so their relationship was a bit more public than most. She could have turned into a controlling monster in the intervening years, but she was always a soft-spoken and a genuinely nice person. I see your point though. Maybe she too is picking up prostitutes so who am I to out one and not the other? I think most of life entails us making decisions with incomplete information. In this case I have few data points, but one of them looms large.

No, I'm in the inform camp. But I'm only there to the extent that you care about their relationship, and in that case your duty is to both parties, and it is a duty of care rather than a duty to do justice to the wronged party as you see it. You never have a duty to be the moral police of another's relationship. — unenlightened

But I do not care about their relationship one way or the other. Their relationship being mended or discarded is entirely up to them. I'm only interested in informing the victim of what the facts on the ground are. It is up to them what to do next. Also, in one case I am not allowed to say anything because I said I would not. In the other, I would only ever inform anonymously, otherwise the chain of information would become very clear, and I do not want to damage more relationships than is necessary.

"Cheating" is only your name for a behaviour, and you do not know exactly what the behaviour is, and, not knowing, you are guaranteed to be wrong. So on that account, butt out. — tim wood

Call it what you like. I do know what happened in both cases. In the first case I am loosely friends with both parties involved. One of the cheaters owned up to it with his wife, but they abruptly cut off contact with the other couple(they were friends). The cheated person in the other relationship lost his friends and doesn't know why.
In the second, a friend of mine was privy to a state investigation that lead to the resignation of the cheater, who worked for the state. So yes, I do in fact know the details.

The only thing we do know is that you're itching to get involved, and that for your own reasons. Here's what you do: absolutely nothing. You do not know what people are doing or why they're doing it. Be certain of this: you do harm and possibly a lot of it if you speak, and no good if you do. — tim wood

Ah yes, I'm just trying my hand at home-wrecking. You got me.

Please make clear just what "should" means in your post. — tim wood

I can't say I speak for Mr Chatterbears, but I believe he means that I ought to inform the wronged. Of course you can't get an ought from an is, but you can get it from a few more is's. I ought to inform the wronged if it is the case that I adhere to a particular moral code and it is the case that this moral code requires I inform the wronged in this situation and that I want to act consistently with that moral code.
I think you already know that's what he means when he says "should", but I guess we'll have to play these linguistic games first.

You can not predict what the consequences of your tale bearing will be. There is a quite good chance that you will make the situation worse by informing so-and-so that the partner is having an affair.

You might be assuming that the relationship is perfect, except for the dirty cheating spouse's slimy affair. Maybe the relationship is dead, and the spouse has found companionship, consolation, and pleasure with someone who was livelier. Is tale-bearing going to make the unresponsive partner suddenly lively and fascinating? Probably not.

You don't know... maybe murder or a serious beating, or two murders will be the result. Who are you to have zero tolerance? — Bitter Crank

You're absolutely right. I cannot predict the consequences which is why I am apprehensive. I know that things would likely get worse, at least in the short term. But in the long term? Opposed to what you posited about my assumptions about their relationship, I think it is very likely that their relationship is troubled already. That's part of the equation for me: the cheated is not living in a fool's paradise. Even if they were living in a beautiful lie, it would be a questionable decision to let them stay. As it is now, the cheated person is more likely to be in an unhappy marriage and the worst of it is just beneath the surface.
Perhaps you're right about the cheated partner being dull or unresponsive, but this is not a tale of new love. The cheater was picking up prostitutes and playing out rape fantasies. Maybe he's changed his ways since then, but something tells me that isn't the case.

Let's muddy the waters. What if the injured party is your sister? Or, what if the cheater is your very best friend....or brother? Would you let your father know that your mother was cheating on him? Why not? — gloaming

This is more of the spirit I had hoped this discussion would be in. Where does one draw the line and why? What ethical frameworks could be used to view this in different ways? What does proximity have to do with it?

on an inter-personal level:
1) Sharing information regarding another's marital infidelity would generally be considered meddlesome and/or cruel (immoral). — Galuchat

Can you expand on this? Why is it viewed as cruel to bring someone up to speed on the reality of the situation they are in? Should I be more interested in protecting the cheater?

" I would want to know the truth" is by itself sufficient, because your wanting something doesn't give it moral authority. On the other hand, you may be justifying this from a 'do on to others, as you would want done onto you' perspective. Even there, you may want to ask yourself, would you really want to know under all circumstances? — Saeed Ahmed

No, of course my wanting to be informed doesn't give it universal moral authority, but if I subscribe to a particular ethical system I should attempt to act in a way consistent with it. As for the last part, I'm sure there is some set of circumstances that are so undesirable that knowing would be the worse of the two, but I think in general finding out the truth is best.

Legally, the prisons would be many times in number and in occupation if it were illegal to have affairs. — gloaming

I'm definitely not suggesting infidelity be criminalized. My questioning isn't borne of a prudish view of sexuality. If people want to have open relationships then more power to them.

What if the injured party is your sister? Or, what if the cheater is your very best friend....or brother? Would you let your father know that your mother was cheating on him? — gloaming

This is what I was hoping the discussion would lead to. Interestingly, my gut reaction is that the closer in relation or proximity to the offense I am, the greater my responsibility to "meddle".

I think the real question is, what is holding you back from revealing the truth to the people that should know? If someone was getting cheated on, irrespective of who it is (my mom, best friend, co-worker, random stranger), I wouldn't even hesitate to tell them. — chatterbears

In one case the question is closed to me because I was told in confidence by someone else who also unwittingly found out. The pool of people who know the truth in that instance is so small that even anonymously informing would likely make it back and damage multiple relationships. In the other, I haven't been in contact with the offender for over a decade. I just happened to be acquainted with a coworker of theirs and it was relayed to me as a funny/absurd story because of how egregious their offenses were. Another layer to that cake is that the offender was formerly a pastor.

I would imagine, that if you have an obligation to inform the cheated, you have at least the same obligation to inform the cheater of your intentions, and give them a chance to own up on their own part, or else bump you off to keep you quiet, or possibly to let you know that they have that sort of open relationship, but prefer to be discrete with each other about the details, so butt out. — unenlightened

You imagine this, why? I have considered informing the cheater as a way of informing the cheated, giving them a time frame to own up to it before their spouse is given an anonymous tip. In both cases, I know with a high degree of certainty that they do not have an open relationship. There has already been fallout due to their infidelity and the lies they have told to cover up their actions indicate that this is not an open secret. Based on the "bump me off" and "butt out" parts of your response, I take it you are strongly in the 'don't inform' camp. Why is that?

So we’ll just say we are confident.

That’s all the dumb public will need. — raza

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that intelligence agencies might be inclined to keep their sources private.

Oh I definitely am not a supporter of Trump and the majority of his ideas, but I'm only referring to my relative level of concern. Seeing someone make calculated political moves is different than seeing someone move from one political blunder to the next and getting lucky some of the time.

Your analysis is probably different than mine, but I think what concerns many people is that he doesn't seem to be playing politics much of the time. I would be less concerned if I thought is rants and outbursts were calculated.

A glass can be both half full and half empty. Kinda corny, but true. — Posty McPostface

I propose that the glass being half full or half empty depends on the direction it is headed. Like immigrate vs emigrate.

[antinatalism is subtler. Its a condemnation not of existence, but of the part of existence we can consider responsible for existence - however the focus on it is serving the same function - the feeling of guilt is placed elsewhere] — csalisbury

Nothing in particular needs to be responsible for existence nor is there a need for guilt. There is no responsibility for that unless there is a god. This sounds like either your particular journey through this subject or a very direct experience of someone else's.

So it is easy to see how a generalised dissatisfaction arises. The more luxurious your life, the more you can become overwhelmed by everything that is just slightly not perfect about it. — apokrisis

Antinatalism need not arise from a dissatisfaction with one's own life. I can recognize that I have led a fairly charmed life with small amounts of suffering here and there, but that is only my small survey of one. The bigger picture is what the antinatalist is focused on, not the individual. And it should come as no surprise there is a requirement of time and luxury to come to such a worldview. If you're struggling day to day just to survive then it's unlikely you'll have time to ponder such things.

Also, antinatalism and pessimism are connected but not necessarily from a local viewpoint. I consider myself a short-term optimist but a long-term pessimist. This doesn't lead to some crippling psychological state where I don't strive to make the world a better place, but it does inform decisions about bringing people into this world.

I'm not sure that's true in this case. I think it's easier for people to believe in a grand time scale for the universe than it is for them to accept that they evolved from other species. What's important from his religious perspective is that we are wholly different from other animals. His openness to a cosmic time scale is just a foothold; it doesn't get us all the way up the mountain.

Fair points. I've had some exhausting experiences debating creationists and the like and seen many others suffer the same fate, so my attitude is somewhat jaded. — Baden

The percentages of success are dismally low, but it does happen from time to time. Worked for me anyway.

So would you say you're agnostic about speciation?

Thanks for all the responses everyone. There's a lot of good stuff to look at.

Religionists of that level don't have anything useful to say about science nor are they worth trying to convince because their group identity is more important to them than being right. This has been studied extensively (see some of the podcasts I've linked to recently which give a good overview of the research ) and the results are as bleak as that. The best thing to do is to just leave them to their ignorance. Yes, speciation obviously happens otherwise there wouldn't be any different... species. And how it happens has been studied and described by scientists. It's not a mystery. — Baden

ProbablyTrue has expressed an interest in interacting with these troglodytes
you have such disdain for. — T Clark

I'm not talking about religious people in general, I'm talking about religious people who maintain that their religious beliefs have a scientific grounding or who try to enforce their religious views re science in the education system, which can only result in mass levels of ignorance, and is a form of abuse as far as I'm concerned. — Baden

I do have an interest in debating these things with some religious people, more specifically, religious people that make up my family and friends. I'm fully aware that a committed ID'er or a creationist will not be convinced by almost any evidence; as you said Baden, it's a group identity thing. However, your run-of-the-mill religious person who has yet to be convinced of the full scope of evolution lives off the scraps of the ideologues. I should know too: I was brought up as a young earth creationist.

It's not necessarily an attempt to disabuse these people of their religious beliefs(the evangelist in me can't help but try), but rather an attempt to help them correct their scientific misunderstanding so that their religious belief at least conforms to reality.

So, what is the evidence for speciation? Not viruses, not unusual plant behavior, just regular organisms evolving from one species to another. 1) fossil record. 2) comparative genetic studies between organisms 3) experience with breeding 4) observations in nature 5) What else? — T Clark

I think 1-4 make a compelling case on their own, and when you add viruses and plants to the equation it bolsters that case. When one steps back and takes into account cosmological timelines, geological timelines, and all of the above, it paints a fairly holistic picture that is hard to make sense of with any other description.

In that case, I am afraid that you'll have to tell them that they are right... :rofl: — Agustino

Care to take a position?

Thanks for the link. Do scientists consider viruses to be 'living'? I thought there was some debate over that point. Also, viruses don't reproduce in the same way large multi-cellular organisms do, so does that not discount the finding?

To be clear, I personally believe speciation occurs. I am trying to find interesting points on both sides of this so that I have more clarity and better explanations for myself and those I speak to about this subject.

See Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, et cetera — yatagarasu

The Cold War was supposed to have ended in 1991. The problem is Putin still thinks it's alive and well.

was probably intended more for domestic consumption. — SophistiCat

This is simultaneously true and untrue. While Putin's speech is likely aimed at bolstering his position for the election this very month, if "The West" responds negatively to his rhetoric, it will act as a confirmation of the need for such weapons(if they exist). Putin is just playing on the hopes and fears of the Russian people so he can retain power.

I'm always confused by the people who speak of western countries being aggressive and therefore are the instigators of such behavior. What exactly is Russia afraid of? Democracy? In fact, yes. If democracy truly took hold in Russia, Putin and his ilk would be removed from power. They will continue to play this "us versus them" narrative as long as they can.

Antinatalism might not suit your taste, but it's hard to argue that being concerned for the suffering of all conscious beings is arrogant.

Yet you feel qualified to prescribe them extinction. — Roke

As if there is some other possible end to be had.

Wayfarer has been saying this for a while. He has repeatedly said that Trump doesn't seem to understand the difference between the collusion charge against his campaign and a collusion charge against him personally. Also, if people are changing their narrative because the facts on the ground are changing, is that controversial? Is it better to be consistent or correct?

Wayfarer is a billionaire. Trust me. He doesn't need to show tax records to prove it. Trust me. Wayfarer also has great words.