Yet you just stated it wasn't. So here's already a circumstance where you think it's not the right thing to do, to support a victim of aggression. — Benkei
As for boethius, he wrote clearly about his moral preference for murder over cheerleading. — Olivier5
I don't see how moral questions can be considered trivial or stupid questions on a philosophy forum. They are important, perhaps not politically but humanely. You don't want to ruin your soul for Putin. — Olivier5
It's been suggested here that another measure could be: what course of action leads to the least number of death. — Benkei
But there is no moral question. We agree Putin is morally wrong and his war is illegal. We disagree about the role of the US. What is stupid is asking me to qualify Putin or the US as being better than the other. Criticism of the US and NATO is in no way, shape or form excuse Putin's moral responsibility in this. A murderer can't excuse himself by saying another person is a murderer too. — Benkei
My hypothesis is that the point is to deflect blame from Mr Putin, which is why the guilt of NATO has to be mentioned constantly, and not just occasionally. — Olivier5
A significant proportion of the city’s private homes have burned down or been destroyed by explosions. There are traces of shrapnel everywhere. The rare house may still have its fence or window panes intact. Many windows are sealed with plastic or boarded up. The words “people live here” are often found on the gates written in chalk. — RT
Criticism of NATO was made here a long time ago, and we all or nearly all agreed that many errors were made and the US and EU have had their share of hypocrisy and immorality. But once this is agreed, you would expect the conversation to go back to Ukraine. Yet it does not... Some people want to talk about NATO again and again and again. — Olivier5
Good point. If the nation being attacked is led by a brutal dictatorship, it might not be the right thing to do to help this dictatorship defend itself, but it's still a morally good thing to help the people themselves; in any case it is better to help them than to kill them. — Olivier5
Presenting your opinion about what Putin would and would not do, how the US might or might not have responded, what influence they may or may not now have...is the whole point of a discussion forum.
Being baffled that anyone would disagree with you renders the medium pointless. I suggest you take up blogging instead. — Isaac
The US did a bad thing creating the circumstances for, and provoking this war.
Putin did a bad thing responding to that provocation so violently and with such callousness.
We all agree on both. — Isaac
The vast majority of this thread has been taken up with attempts to paint such criticism as apologetics for Putin. — Isaac
So why do you want conversation about one to stop, but conversation about the other to continue? — Isaac
What are you even talking about now? — Christoffer
once this [criticism of NATO] is agreed, you would expect the conversation to go back to Ukraine. — Olivier5
There was no provocation that I can see. So no, i don't agree. It's all on Putin. — Olivier5
we all or nearly all agreed that many errors were made — Olivier5
never ever said I wanted any conversation to stop. I am just explaining what purpose is served by blaming NATO again and again — Olivier5
what errors were you referring to and what were their consequences? — Isaac
Your explanation relies on an assumption that the conversation ought to have stopped — Isaac
Bombing cities lead -- I think -- to more deaths than cheerleading, so by your own yardstick it is morally far more disgusting to bomb civilians than to cheerlead anyone. And I agree with you! — Olivier5
I don't think this was the issue to begin with. — Benkei
As bombing and shelling ripped through Ukraine’s towns and cities in the first week of the invasion, the Ukrainian government still made a scheduled interest payment to its private lenders on time. The lenders—mostly international finance institutions, banks, and hedge funds—are all queuing up to collect their debts, with no sign of respite.
Since the invasion, Ukrainian dollar-denominated bonds, which were issued as part of its 2015 debt restructuring, have been trading at around 25 cents in the dollar. This reflects the high risk of default, but also means that if Ukraine continues to make its debt payments, Western banks and hedge funds could make profits of 300%.
The response of multilateral institutions has been to give even more loans to Ukraine. Since the war started, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has given a £1.4 billion emergency loan, while the World Bank has provided a $723 million financial package that includes $589 million in loans. These new loans are being piled on top of Ukraine’s already unsustainable debts. — https://jubileedebt.org.uk/news/cancel-ukraines-debt
It uses this expectation as evidence for the analysis of interlocutors you, quite rightly, allow for. — Isaac
I analyzed the possible obsession with Nato in terms of how debates and discussions has been going on for 30 years now. To the extent of leading to bias dismissing the more logical motivations Putin and Russia have.
So far, all who argue for blaming Nato for Putin's invasion are the ones inventing facts or taking one unrelated fact and making false connections to motive. All while people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion.
It's this Nato bias in the rhetoric so many have that makes them pick facts that do not actually logically glue to an actual conclusion for such external motivations of Putin. The "facts" are either what Putin says directly, which is undoubtedly the most unreliable source for any kind of fact, or a historic fact with the rhetorical suffix that it somehow connects to such motivations without any real connection established.
It's this inability to actually make coherent arguments where premises (facts) actually relate to the conclusion that creates a mess of a discussion where people just cite historical facts as premises for conclusions of their own opinion. Instead of looking at what people who research Putin actually says, use that for interpreting the behavior through this conflict and make logical and rational inductive conclusions based on it. — Christoffer
people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer
people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer
Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.