Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war?

Again, no threat to USA, Australia, Germany or France of Italy and most Western nations, of the war spilling over. — boethius

The war could turn nuclear, which is a very serious threat to the Western nations (and the world). Everyone on the planet has a stake in what's going on in Ukraine.

Do you think there's a moral equivalence between NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

The war could turn nuclear, which is a very serious threat to the Western nations (and the world). Everyone on the planet has a stake in what's going on in Ukraine. — RogueAI

By spillover I mean the current war literally spilling over borders.

I then address the nuclear threat in the next sentence:

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them. — boethius

Nuclear war in this context is meant to address the increased risk to everyone, but I should have specified that the spillover risk to neighbours is both conventional and nuclear.

:up:

In the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer.

the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer. — Benkei

The Hittites were pretty cool. Egypt was in a class by itself. Obviously.

Aztecs, though. Talk about mayhem. :grimace:

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them. — Isaac

Ok, let's make it super clear. The conclusion is originally more: "Teaching critical thinking is needed to help people see past authoritarian propaganda." So, dividing them into two inductive arguments:

[p1] Critical thinking is a method of thought [p2] needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, has a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies requires external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one must know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking is required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

Now [p1] and [p2] True or false? Look at history, even the Soviet era, look at North Korea, Nazi Germany look at major authoritarian regimes and times when the church and king had all the power. How grinding down actual truth over generations, decades, and centuries places the common man in a position where it's next to impossible to see any other reality than the one that has been taught by parents, state, church, and other citizens. The only time such status quos break down and collapse is when the suffering and acts by those in power conflict with the truths that have been taught. For example, a church promotes peace in a nation but slaughters citizens in front of their eyes. Many effective authoritarian regimes conducted such slaughters outside of the citizens' view, so as to not conflict with the established propaganda. The more effective the propaganda machine, the more likely people will form biases to a point where they could even be exposed to contradicting evidence and still accept the propaganda narrative as true. For example, people call relatives in Russia to say are suffering through war and their relatives don't believe them, regardless of the evidence sent to them.
For [p3] True or false? People can develop high intelligence and high levels of logical thinking, but higher intelligence does not equal being immune to bias. The only way to be aware of one's own biases is to learn about them and how to spot them. Learn how to form arguments that don't come out of those biases and form fallacies in reasoning. That kind of knowledge can form naturally, but on a scale that encompasses an entire people, that probability is close to impossible. The knowledge about biases and fallacies and the understanding of these cognitive processes have been formed through philosophy and science over a very long time and many many researchers and thinkers to a combined body of knowledge. That one person would naturally develop the same extensive knowledge without any education is close to impossible, and a whole people doing it has such a low probability that it can't even be a valid factor against this premise. [p4] True or false? While we can debate on how to actually define "critical thinking", this is a short summary and general description found everywhere. The ability to critically evaluate something and be aware of the biases that contaminate that evaluation process. [p5] True or false? Since biases and fallacies are epistemic facts needed to understand one's own thought process in a more objective manner, they need to be taught through education of those facts in order to enable proper critical thinking to take place. So in the conclusion, all those premises support that teaching about critical thinking is required to help people understand how the propaganda forms their biases and how critically examining state information can only be done while being aware of how the biases formed through the history of that authoritarian state.


Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever. And how parents teaching children works better, especially in the context of [p1] and [p2] in my argument. But I think I know what will happen, you will not do that and you will continue to demand more of my argument than you are willing to give about your own.

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why? — Isaac

You don't present any argument for "what the case is", you conclude that it is better for parents to just teach their children instead of formal education, and I object to that because parents teaching children a broad education requires the parents to be unbiased, but in authoritarian states, the state propaganda narrative is so ingrained through generations that those parents won't be unbiased but have a strong belief bias. And you ignore dealing with this objection and defend your position only with an appeal to authority: "I'm a professor and you are wrong".

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking. — Isaac

You have claimed a lot of things without any ounce of evidence other than implying that I'm wrong because you are a professor. And you haven't presented strong evidence against my argument either, other than that you are a professor.

If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!" — Isaac

You haven't shown any sign to know what you are talking about. Your acts do not compute with your claimed title. I did not say that you are a bad professor until after continuously just reading your claim of title as the only source behind your claims. In the case of "professor of Law", the follow up is to show that it isn't legal, not to say that "I'm a professor of Law and that might mean you need to consider yourself to be wrong". That is essentially the same as implying I'm wrong just because you are a professor. You demand valid arguments, but you do nothing of the sort yourself.

The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...". — Isaac

Essentially just accepting what you say... because you claimed yourself to be a professor. The normal reaction would be to say: "Ok, show me". Why should I just accept what you claim? Why should your conclusions don't be examined also? Are you unable to see the problem with this?

Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know. — Isaac

I ask for evidence, facts, rational arguments, and elaborations on your claims and conclusions. If you don't provide it, or you provide something inconclusive or illogical, then I object and when you continuously don't elaborate further I cannot do anything other than conclude your claims to be wrong or inconclusive.

You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject. — Isaac

I assume that you tell the truth because if you lied about being a professor, you render everything you say irrelevant as you have absolutely zero credibility and fall back on such tactics. Assuming you telling the truth allows me to grant you the opening to try and rationally argue for your claims and conclusions with more foundational respect as an interlocutor. So far, you haven't really done that, so I could question the validity of your claim, but my assumption does not change the fact that you still need to prove yourself past just pointing out you are a professor. I think a problem here is that if you are a professor you might be biased toward the dynamic of student/professor, where the respect from students towards a professor is generally more in respect of that title and the knowledge that comes with it. But I'm not your student and therefore I have no requirement of taking your words for granted without asking for more clarification and elaboration. To imply that if I accept the idea that you are a professor, I should therefore not be able to believe I could know more than you, is basically you saying that without knowing my level of knowledge, without knowing if I have a title or not, without any knowledge whatsoever regarding it, claim that you know more than me, just because of your claimed title. You aren't correct because you are a professor, you are correct if you demonstrate your claim and conclusion to be correct. Until then, you cannot say that I shouldn't believe I know more than you, because your title does not warrant a dismissal of the possibility that I know more than you, it is just a claim with so far zero proof in practice.

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching. — Isaac

That you say you have studied them is the same as saying "I'm a professor therefore I'm right." The claim that you have studied is not a valid premise. Give me the study, the paper in that case.
Or form an argument with premises that aren't "I have the knowledge, therefore" or "I'm a professor, therefore".

I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity. — Isaac

I see no facts, publications, or logical premises here other than "I believe", try again.

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case. — Isaac

I'm not claiming you are lying, I'm saying that you just point to an unknown study that made you believe you are right. That is not enough. You could also try and logically argue for your claim and conclusion, so far I've not seen such a valid argument.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people?
— Christoffer

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect. — Isaac

https://core.ac.uk/reader/110405
https://core.ac.uk/reader/158370562
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1505329112
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=289aa9bd-a8b1-4431-88e2-83f326e01fe7
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=098c015f-c58f-4dda-b1c9-c69fffd7d2dd

As you can see by this very loose search for papers on teaching critical thinking it points toward broad consensus specifically around the importance of teaching critical thinking. Interestingly enough, the paper on critical thinking in Rwanda touches upon the very thing I'm talking about, where misinformation about health causes health problems and that the importance of teaching critical thinking helps mitigate serious consequences of such misinformation.

There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

Set in the context of Russian propaganda, the disinformation acts in similar ways, setting things up for dangerous consequences for the people that blindly follow that disinformation. Therefore critical thinking needs to be taught to help new generations understand what is propaganda and what is not.

So when you say that your studies conclude that if material challenges are met, people will think for themselves and that teaching these kinds of skills have no real measurable effect, that just sounds like your study is massively flawed and even downright false in its conclusion.

You could, however, provide the study, and references and make efforts through argument to support the claims you make, so that it doesn't just sound like they're your personal opinions wrapped up in an appeal to authority fallacy. But you won't, because you conveniently pressed on the idea that you are a professor and now you cannot show the "evidence" in support of your conclusions because that would be bad for you to do so on a public forum.

However, I think it's bad for you to be on a public forum anyway based on how you actually write here. If you are a professor, it would be wise to act in that effort, with the same scrutiny and standard, even under a pseudonym.

I really like to see publications that position that formal education isn't needed, that's a very radical conclusion and would surely make splashes in the scientific community. And because it's such a radical conclusion, it really needs some strong support. Your claims of having conducted a study is not enough, that study needs to be elaborated on. Sample sizes, cultural differences, class differences, cognitive differences, and socioeconomic differences. Also comparing to formal education in nations with private schools and those with government-funded schools as well as the statistics about levels of knowledge between different societies with different educational systems.

The problem here is that you just say "you made a study", that is not enough to claim you know better.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth.
— Christoffer

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that. — Isaac

Here you go with the studies claim again. *sigh*

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then?
— Christoffer

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance. — Isaac

It was an annoyance and you have concluded that formal education isn't needed. May I suggest I see a pattern in need of research here? How your annoyance formed an opinion that informed you to create a hypothesis that you are trying to prove.

Also interesting that you say "was" for both. I guess you're not a professor anymore then. And if "was" why would you get in trouble if you showed the studies you published? You can't get fired from somewhere you annoyed yourself to quit from, right?

The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are. — Isaac

You tend to always just see one cause of all problems, the west, the US, imperialism, material scarcity.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac


One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first.
— Christoffer

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage? — Isaac

I asked you to show me an example of such critical thinking that evolved separately from all other major studies in epistemology. But you never show me that. You ask why they don't already have those skills. Maybe it is because as I've already explained about the history of critical thinking, that it might require studies over centuries by many people and that it might be western power and luck that enabled it to go from the Greeks, through the Islamic golden age, through the renaissance, enlightenment era and modernized and synthesized with other philosophies around the world, that led to what it is today, both in cognitive sciences, philosophy and education. Maybe their cultural heritage does not allow for it or have it because of either interference that destroyed its progress, like how the Mayan empire collapsed and the knowledge of astronomy far ahead of its time got lost and had to be re-discovered again in the west.

Asking "Why?" does not change the fact that you have not shown examples of the same level of developed critical thinking in any other culture. Can you please... show.... it...

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right
— Christoffer

Yeah. Right. — Isaac

Delusional point of view.

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system. — Isaac

Oh, so it's all just about the teacher/student relationship here? So first off, you need them to learn to read and write, basic education, that needs a teacher otherwise they can't do much with those books now can they? Then you just leave them with those books, but still have experts? So how does this in any shape or form change the fact that teaching critical thinking, either through those books or through a teacher can have the effect that I describe? Like the Rwanda paper.

And what about the differences in learning skills between students? Not all function the same, not all can go through autodidactic methods of learning and reach the same place as others. A study with a small sample size of an even smaller number of different backgrounds of students in this topic cannot conclude such an autodidactic learning method to be conclusively better than traditional education.

Again, you have studied, but I see no research paper or actual details of such a study. Is it even published? Is it reviewed?

Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.
— Christoffer

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them. — Isaac

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about people living through generation after generation of limited knowledge controlled by an authoritarian regime. If you think they are stupid you clearly don't know shit about how indoctrination and belief bias works, regardless of your "professor status".

A clear example of this is the parents of people living in Ukraine who, when called up by their crying children, don't believe them that there's a war there. I could appeal to my emotions and say that these parents are fucking idiots, but the truth is that they've lived their whole lives within the state-controlled lies and world-view, so as to function as servants of that regime whether they are aware of it or not.

It's precisely this process of generational propaganda feedback loop that I'm arguing for being broken by getting knowledge of critical thinking into areas of the world that only get their information from authoritarian sources of propaganda.

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms. — Isaac

Being able to go out of their room does not equal being forced to face different perspectives and ideas, to be forced into the world and train such social skills. Sure, you can put them in social spaces, but learning together with others, and collaborating on projects is a massive needed skill to learn as you grow up. Especially if you are further away from extroversion. Such things do not happen on their own, or rather, they can never achieve a sufficient level for all, so only a few will benefit and others will suffer from lacking social skills later on.

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?
— Christoffer

Yes and yes. — Isaac

Really, what about biases? Did they show a clear understanding of biases while forming such a deduction argument? Can I read more somewhere about this other than you just saying you did?

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?
— Christoffer

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that. — Isaac

Education mitigates it, ignoring it or just hoping "it fixes itself" like your idea of the autodidactic educational system does nothing and can even increase the problems. This is why methods are important, especially for those that find just "figuring it out" hard and mentally taxing. Having clearer methods help those with guidance rather than just acknowledging they have a bias and then doing nothing. And I'm not assuming anything, just look at the antivaccer movement filled with strongly agreeable people and a flourishing group-think mentality. With enough effort you could easily pull them under authoritarian ideas. Ironically enough most of them have moved from vaccination conspiracies to pro-Putin conspiracies and ideas.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.
— Christoffer

According to whom? — Isaac

According to you not able to produce support for such a conclusion, only "I'm a professor who did a study that showed me it is so", without showing said study, or any details, facts, or arguments in support.

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves?
— Christoffer

No. Not once. — Isaac

So how do they rid themselves of authoritarian governments if large parts of a population fully believe propaganda and lies because that's the only exposure they have to outside information? Does education of children that teaches them other perspectives than the authoritarian lies help break that generational cycle of echo chambers?

How do you propose it get fixed? Also I seem to remember you proposing that we need to let nations like Russia "figure it out by themselves", right?

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west
— Christoffer

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention. — Isaac

Those are not enough. The World Bank is already working on cutting dept, and removing corrupt regimes, how do you propose that happens without military intervention? Ask them nicely? Most attempts at changing regimes have happened through sanctions, at great cost to the people, so what's the alternative? Military intervention, killing off the corruption, and attempting to push for non-corrupt elections. But what happens if the people's literacy levels are low? If education is so low that normal electoral processes don't work and the nation falls back into separatist warfare? Much of this has already happened unfortunately forcing change in that way is extremely hard. What's lacking in nations that continuously have problems, outside of the debt problem, is almost always a lack of education for the people. Getting to self-sustainability requires more people to be educated and if literacy levels are low because it's hard getting them to such education, then it logically won't work better by just hoping they learn on their own, just by having books.

You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac


Because you are a professor?
— Christoffer

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong. — Isaac

It's also common for highly educated people to discover problems with professors using their title as a source of authority in discussions. The whole reason why critical thinking is an important topic for me is that it's part of my own philosophical work. And my ethical work on epistemic responsibility, that a key point is to not just accept something until tested or examined. You have claimed to be a professor, a professor with radical conclusions about education, who says that you have studies that prove your conclusions and that because of this I should bow down to it, accept that I can be wrong and that you can be right, even if you haven't demonstrated any support for any of it.

This is an abuse of your title, a way to use that title as part of an argument in order to shift the balance of power in a debate. Unfortunately, for you, I don't fall for such behaviors. That's why I keep asking for support for your claims. Until that is presented your title means nothing and your studies are irrelevant. You need to make it relevant before it can be used to support your claims and conclusions. Otherwise, it just becomes you claiming your right becauseyou say so.

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. — Isaac

Dig deeper then.

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong.
— Christoffer

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you. — Isaac

You first agree that you do an appeal to authority fallacy, then still position it to be justified. As I said you might need to dig deeper.

Your contradictions are opinions with claims going against most research on the topic, meaning you have a radical claim without the support and you position that as being the contradiction against me by an expert. I assume there's something wrong with you, not because I don't agree with you, but because you haven't presented any support for anything you've said. What is it that you don't understand here? You're babbling on and on about this but you can't see the glaring problem with this? And because you used past tense when speaking about your role as a teacher and researcher,

I'm beginning to believe that you're just an unemployed professor, delusional after unfinished studies with growing radical ideas that you desperately want to be true and you try to gain your old status back in here by just saying "I've done studies, trust me I'm a professor and I have seen so much that proves me right."

You still have to show support for your claims. I don't give a fuck about your title, it is irrelevant if you can't back up your ideas with the studies you draw all your truths from.

You asked me, remember? — Isaac

Doesn't mean you are free from having to support your claims and conclusions.

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice. — Isaac

No, it's called an appeal to authority.

It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree. — Isaac

You simply don't understand that you claiming this means nothing. It's still an appeal to authority, something you as a professor should know what it means.

It would be easy to continue the discussion if you actually made efforts to support your claims. I can't respect someone who positions themselves as being "more right" than me because of their title or claim of expertise if that's the only source of support for their claims, especially when the claims are radical and in need of heavy support as they counter general consensus of the topic.

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor
— Christoffer

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were. — Isaac

You claim yourself to be a professor and therefore I should consider myself wrong. Because you have no other support for your claims, this becomes the only support you present, and it is about using appeal to authority to gain superiority over your interlocutor.

I just finished an interesting documentary where they argue that where science, profit and belief in superiority coincide, you have a particular volatile combination. So the US is build on the genocide of native americans (500 treaties signed and broken), millions displaced, forcibly converted, murdered and raped.

Most European wealth is build on the genocide and slavery of Africans. Belgium murdered 3,000,000 Congolese. The French, Dutch, English, Spanish and Portuguese had their slave trade. And almost all of them had colonies.

The Aztecs were original in a particular brand of religious sacrifice but a bunch of pussies compared to settler colonialism and all the crap that came with that. Europe then turned around and actually decided to kill their own (Jews) because, well only Aryans and Gentiles were superior (I gloss over the "Irish are descendants from monkeys but the English are Man" as a minor sidestory).

Considering the direction in which sheer quantities have developed over the centuries the next genocide where all three points mentioned in the first sentence coincide is going to be record-breaking. I'm just praying karma isn't a thing or we're both fucked.

This is a good question but one I can't really answer but only guess at.

Ukraine was torn between loyalty to the West and Russia to the East. It's politics have not been free of meddling for decades. So whether their wish to join was genuine or bought for, I don't know. I think Coca-Cola sells better than Vodka so maybe culturally there was a genuine preference to align with the West - or maybe that's just projection. But then that raises the question, why NATO? Why not just a partnership and cooperation agreement and association treaty at a later stage with the EU> So personally I think it was not Ukraine's idea to begin with but NATO/US and for various reasons Ukrainian politicians went along with it and NATO/US preferred the NATO route because the Ukrainian economy wasn't interesting but its military importance was (control of the Black Sea, bordering Russia, striking distance from Moscow).

What is of course curious is that all the warnings issued in the US and EU by political think tanks about expansion of NATO to the East imply that this was also known in Ukraine proper. I wonder about the motivations of politicians to vote in favour of a policy that would antagonise Russia and increase the likelihood of further military intervention and hardship for Ukrainians. Especially in light of this being implemented in their constitution after Georgia and Crimea was already annexed. It was clear Russia wasn't afraid to use military force to enforce its sphere of influence.

So, stupidity? Pride? Getting even? Bribed? All possible I suppose.

Haven't found anything on the net to give me a more informed view on this.

The Aztecs were original in a particular brand of religious sacrifice but a bunch of pussies compared to settler colonialism and all the crap that came with that — Benkei

They were still mass murderers. Sure, they don't have the scale of the two countries that top the list of mass murderers: USSR and China, but give them a break. They were in the middle of nowhere.

I'm just praying karma isn't a thing or we're both fucked. — Benkei

Whatchoo mean "we" kemosabe?

Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever — Christoffer

OK.

p1] Critical thinking is not a method of thought [p2] which isn't needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies don't develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, doesn't have a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies doesn't require external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one need not know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking isn't required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

Estimates for native americans killed through deliberate governmental action range from 95 million to 114 million in Canada and the US. Whether that was the US government or proxy governments for colonial powers is a bit academic. It does beat Mao although admittedly over a 500 year time period.

Whatchoo mean "we" kemosabe? — frank

I hope karmic retaliation doesn't do guilt by association but considering the agents it picks so far I'm not optimistic.Sorry.

Then we're done here, you have proven your inability to function through argument because that is not a counterargument. I've presented sources and elaborations of the premises and you just flip them instead while obviously haven't read more than the first part. So you are a waste of time, good luck with your "studies" professor expert :lol:

@frank Book I got the numbers from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48835.American_Holocaust

sources and elaborations — Christoffer

So what do suppose happens now? In your mind, how did this play out? I say "you got me, I just made all that up, I don't have any sources at all". Is that where you saw this going? I just want to know what you think is going on here.

So far I've got a disgruntled professor, venting at being ignored by the world, waits patiently for 170 pages just hoping, in a topic on Ukraine (for some reason), someone will bring up his pet theory, so he can...what? I get lost there in your plotline. The disgruntled professor gets what? Did he forget Google scholar existed? Was he hoping you didn't know about it? What happens next?

You put a tremendous amount of effort into presenting an opposing case in something you've clearly no expertise in (else you wouldn't have needed the Google search), to someone you still (remarkably) believe is an expert in that field. How did you think that was going to go?

Estimates for native americans killed through deliberate governmental action range from 95 million to 114 million in Canada and the US. Whether that was the US government or proxy governments for colonial powers is a bit academic. It does beat Mao although admittedly over a 500 year time period. — Benkei

It's not academic that the USA and Canada didn't exist 500 years ago, when measles was the biggest killer of Native Americans.

British American Tobacco?

Knowingly killed more people than any other single entity in the time between them knowing cigarettes caused lung cancer and them telling anyone. Apparently.

Knowingly killed more people than any other single entity in the time between them knowing cigarettes caused lung cancer and them telling anyone. Apparently — Isaac

I think COPD is a bigger killer than lung cancer isn't it?

I think COPD is a bigger killer than lung cancer isn't it? — frank

I think you're right. That significantly ups the death count. Although I think the point was that they knew about the link to cancer but ignored it. Hence the inclusion in genocide.

Although any government who knows about the link between pm10s and lower life expectancy, but fails to act accordingly...?

Depends how deliberate the act needs to be I suppose. I take BATs ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco to be pretty deliberate, especially as they also knew cigarettes were addictive.

Now, fast food companies....

as a person acts in Europe and Asia for years, I must agree with you.

"Antiquity historians" had to do with folks who keep talking of the Roman empire again and again. — Olivier5

They aren't historians though. They're politicians and technocrats that use history to justify their political programs. I for one doubt that genuine historians would advocate the reconstruction of the Roman Empire. Though, of course, one can never know ....

Good thing it's not — Olivier5

Bad thing it is. America is the EU's second-largest trading partner and global investment banking in the EU is dominated by US banks, as are the international financial institutions like IMF that are involved in financial assistance and economic adjustment programs in the EU, etc., not to mention the EU's dependence on the financial markets like the City of London that are dominated by US banks.

You must be aware that the EU is trying to break free from London-based clearing houses?

The European Union must cut its heavy reliance on derivatives clearing in London in the same way as the bloc is ending its dependency on Russian energy due to the war in Ukraine, EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said on Wednesday.
The EU has agreed to allow clearing houses in Britain, such as the London Stock Exchange's LCH arm, to continue serving banks and asset managers in the bloc until June 2025 to give time to build up clearing capacity inside the EU.

Cutting EU reliance on UK clearers like ending use of Russian energy, says commissioner - Reuters

London, which is no longer in the EU, continues to be Europe's main financial center. The EU has been trying hard to move it to Frankfurt, but there is little chance that's going to happen anytime soon.

The irony is that to break free from London, the EU will have to allow US banks to operate more freely within the EU, there being no other alternative:

LONDON, April 4 2022 (Reuters) - The European Union said on Monday it has widened access for U.S. exchanges and clearing houses to investors in the bloc, a move which contrasts with Brussels' intention to shut off clearing houses in London in 2025.

EU widens market access for U.S. derivatives clearers and exchanges - Reuters

Maybe Paris or Marseilles should stand in for London and New York .... :wink:

In the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer. — Benkei

There's no difference between Stalin and FDR? You don't really believe that, do you?

> If you find it morally defensible and I don't, I don't see how much further we can go as there are few arguments that can profitably be brought to bear.

There is an anthropological fact that grounds my moral reasoning: social identities are part of our personal identities and they are rooted in our communal life with other individuals in a given environment. Social identities evolve with the size of the population and are passed on through generations and they matter to individuals as much as material conditions. Some traits of our social identity matters more than others (for whatever personal reason) and this brings with it selective criteria (who is part and who is not part of the community) and related understanding of interests, duties and rights. Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. And to some that matters, even more than class division. Russia is a good example of such nationalism with Putin as its revanchist herald.

> The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Common in what sense? What are the evidences to support your claim? And how do you explain the fact that Russian soldiers (example of working class) are killing Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians instead of killing Putin and his entourage of oligarchs, generals, orthodox patriarchs and mafia friends (example of ruling class)? And why ordinary Russian majorities support Putin’s criminal and murderous war against the Ukrainians (who Putin claims are one people with Russians, so it’s as if he’s killing his own people)? Why do you support Russian expansionism given that the combination of nationalism and authoritarian regime present in Russia consolidates and perpetuates the subordination of the masses to the ruling classes in ways that are even hard to conceive in the West?
Keep also in mind that I didn’t question the value one can put into class struggles, nor claimed that is always immoral. While you made some radical moral claims about fighting over national identity and independence: indeed one thing is to claim that class struggles are or can be morally more defensible than fighting over a flag, another is to claim - as you do - that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral. Such a radical moral claim of yours sounds preposterous to me on anthropological grounds.

> It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

I find your claims quite preposterous for the following reasons.
1. Where you write “Ukrainian children die”, I would have written “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers”. Why such a difference? “Ukrainian children die” may be seen as an effect of your multi-causal grand theory, I get it, yet you didn’t offer any multi-causal theory to prove your point and secondly if all is literally causal then we leave in a deterministic world, and there would be no responsibility not even for the ruling classes. So to talk about responsibility you need agency. And with your analysis you should still prove Zelensky’s responsibility from “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers” and not from “Ukrainian children die”, if you want to make sense to me.
2. Children don’t get a saying in anything because they are children. When working classes and slaves were exploited or made insurrections didn’t consult their children, yet their children could get exploited or killed in a bloody repression. Did Putin consult Russian children’s before starting a war, since they are going to suffer anyways the consequences? Did Putin consult his soldiers (who are children to Russian parents) before sending them to war? Did the Russian soldiers or Putin consult the Ukrainian children before killing them? No they didn’t. So nobody can do much with such a poor premise of yours. I’ll suggest you to present your moral claim as follows: “Putin is ready to let his army kill, rape and burn Ukrainian children and their parents as he already did for the Russian flag, so Ukrainians should submit to Putin and get rid of Zelensky, if they want to prove me that they care about their children, families and homes more than I do, otherwise they are more immoral than Putin”. It’s simpler and straightforward, and it spares you the embarrassment of defending preposterous moral claims and clandestine multi-causal analysis.
3. So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone, which is more than what Putin officially demanded?! Even Putin might cringe over your overzealousness.
4. If Ukrainians who lost their families in this war oppose the continuation of this war and want Zelensky gone because they take him to be responsible for what has happened, I can’t exclude that could be a morally defensible choice, of course! Yet, from my perspective, the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian and had my family exterminated by Russians, I wouldn’t care about Zelensky, no matter how much responsibilities you would ascribe to him based on your clandestine multi-causal theory, I would simply go fight the Russians to death. Besides if I heard anybody trying to convince me out of it with your kind of reasoning, I would have beaten the shit out of him. But maybe someone would have acted differently, I don’t know. The point is that my moral claims concerning this war take into account what the Ukrainians value as this war concerns them in the first place (but ultimately not only them). And since I do not have direct access to what they want collectively, then I would take Zelensky as their chosen representative in times of peace and in times of war, until I’m proven wrong. BTW Zelensky support among Ukrainians is confirmed to me by some good feedback from expat Ukrainian friends and foreign reporters on the ground.


> all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case. — neomac
I don't see how. How are you measuring 'mistrust' and why say it's too high here?

I didn’t measure “mistrust”. There are unavoidable evidences and compelling reasons for mistrust. Negotiations stalled: so either the demands were too hard to digest or there weren’t enough assurances or both. That Russian demands are already over the top is clear as I explained, and that Putin has lost his credibility to Ukraine is obvious having violated the Budapest agreement. And notice that Ukrainians do not blindly trust the West either, because they too didn’t stand by the Budapest agreement. While Putin, from his point of view, could justify this war precisely because he didn’t have enough assurances from the West either (https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/we-dont-want-conflict-but-we-need-assurance-putin-tells-nato-41179711.html). And if before there was mistrust now it’s so much worse. For example, if Ukraine agrees to be out of NATO what ensures that Ukraine will not be attacked again by Russia? Putin’s word? Lavrov’s ? Yours? Out of NATO, Ukrainians need either the binding guarantees from Western countries to intervene militarily (and notice that according to the Budapest memorandum the UK and the US should have intervened!) or their own full-fledged military defense which should be enough deterring, yet not too threatening right? And who is going to provide such military defense? Putin? The West? China?
“The harsh reality is there is currently no risk-free exit from this situation because the logical extension of ‘not provoking Putin’ is to agree to every single Russian demand with nary a sanction in response, as any pushback or slightest criticism simply raises the ‘nuclear question’ again. But in that scenario, nowhere is off limits to Russia – certainly not other former Soviet states, such as the Baltic states and ex-Warsaw Pact countries. Threats, no matter how apocalyptic, must be absorbed calmly and assessed on their true merits, not based on hysterical reaction. Precedent shows de-escalation and a willingness to negotiate only convinces Putin he is on the right track, while appeasement spurs him to make further demands.” (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/03/negotiated-peace-russia-fraught-danger)
By starting this war Putin made clear that he himself is an existential threat not only to Ukraine, but to the entire West, and diplomacy doesn’t fare well with him.


> I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

OK what do you mean by “support”? Show me how you would apply it to your position.


> That assumes the power in America lies in the various ventriloquist dolls chosen to act as mouthpieces for the vast industries which run America.

I don’t know exactly where the power lies: surely there are all kinds of powerful lobbies pulling strings and poking, in the US as anywhere else. The point is that depending on the power structure decision makers concentrate more or less power in their hands. This in turn affects the range of options they have and their capacity to put their decisions into effect as intended. That’s also why responsibility is easier to assess in the case of Putin, since the concentration of power in his hands is greater than in any western president, America included.


> Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question.
> Does a supply of weapons help?

Well Zelensky is asking for military assistance to the West, and the West is supplying it. And it’s primarily up to the Ukrainians to assess if they get enough help.

> Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?

That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help, not about intentions. Concerning intentions, what counts here is how fair and reliable commitments are for all the parties involved in a negotiation, partnership, alliance. If there are second, third, fourth interests is up to political actors to guess and to work with or around with.

> A supply of weapons certainly boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence?

What did I say that made you think that I’m arguing that if a supply of weapons boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world, that’s a coincidence? What are the moral implications of such observation? Can you spell them out?

> You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars).

Quote where I said that. Or show me how you could possibly infer such a claim from what I said.


> Then by what standard are you measuring?

Metrics are relevant wrt what people value. The death toll in a war counts, I don’t deny that. What I deny is that death toll is all that counts for moral considerations or that is what necessary counts for moral considerations (in the sense that we can’t take legitimate moral position until we know the number of the victims). Bombing hospitals, civilians and children is not morally defensible, giving stingers and javelins to Ukrainians that want to continue to fight against Russia also with stingers and javelins is morally defensible.



> https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/ — neomac
That's better. I don't see in there evidence that Ukraine clearly has more open views on standards of life than Russia. I see a complex picture. Views on homosexuality, for example.

I was referring only to these parts:
“In Ukraine (8.25), which is closer to European attitudes (see the 9.1 in Poland), there are very pronounced European aspirations;
[…] while in Russia there are, by comparison, less high aspirations for a well-functioning democracy, Russians are relatively satisfied. In Ukraine, aspirations are higher, but satisfaction is lower. It is precisely this discrepancy that may call for deep reform, something President Zelensky was confronted with during his presidency.
[…] To what extent can Europe ‘buoy’ Ukraine? Here we see precisely that Ukraine, which is not a member of the EU, has relatively high confidence in the European Union (2.4 on a scale of 1-4). This puts the country at the same height as Poland (2.4) and Belarus (2.3), and even higher than the Netherlands (2.2). It leaves Russia far behind (1.9)”.

These facts support relative value proximity between Ukraine and the West wrt Russia, and this is relevant too for my moral assessments.


> you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all. — neomac

I know, that's why I said them. Those are the demands on the table at the moment, so of course they're Putin's. The argument was that they don't push Russian expansionism futher. They are the de facto positions already.

If we are talking about a negotiation between 2 parties, a third strategy that is opposing both should take into account what both parties demand, which you didn’t. Besides these negotiations depend on great power politics, right? Then again if we are talking about a geopolitical competition between 2 great powers, a third strategy that is opposing both, should take into account both strategic objectives (and longer term objectives are more relevant than shorter term objectives), which again you didn’t. And since accepting Putin’s demands (as they are) will empower Putin, then there would be more risks against the West, this is what needs to be opposed. Why? Because no great power politics pursues expansionism based on number of deaths, pieces of land, or who is the president per se but wrt increment of power relative to competitors. Besides, from that point of view what “Russia could get more” or “de facto positions” mean, depends on power costs/benefits calculi that take into account the Russian actual capacity to get more or preserve de facto positions, not how Russia is framing their demands. So no, you didn’t offer any third strategy, you just support Russians.


> It's not about 'sides' it's about tactics. It's not possible to support a nation (like Russia, or the US or Ukraine). There are 41 million people in Ukraine and they have different opinions. You can't support them all. You're picking a method and supporting that.

> Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism — neomac
Why would that lead from caring more about civilian lives?

> Again, it's methods, not reasons. Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

From your claims what I take your line of reasoning to be is in short the following. Your method to decide which expansionism to support is based on counting deaths, directly or indirectly provoked by expansionist activities (whatever they are). So since the US has indirectly provoked more deaths in Yemen than Russia has directly provoked in Ukraine, then we should side with Russia.
If that is in short your line of reasoning, then let me stress once more that, from your own way of framing things, you are not opposing 2 expansionisms, you are supporting Russian expansionism as much as I support American expansionism, based on who/what we take to be the lesser evil between the two. And, always according to you, I would be wrong because I didn’t do the right math roughly based on the death toll metric.
Now to the point: I find your way of framing the moral dilemma (who is the lesser evil?) conceptually flawed. America and Russia as geopolitical agents are theoretical abstractions useful for historical and strategic thinking, they do not possess real agency and therefore they do not bear responsibilities, they are beyond good and evil. They represent self-preserving power structures that reacts to perceived threats to their expansion or to pursue expansion in competition with other self-preserving power structures, and we can assess how they perform based on the relative quota of power. And we should be vigilant about the ambiguities inherent in anthropomorphic talking about geopolitical agents as actual moral agents, or in conveniently assimilating geopolitical agents to their current political leaders or administrations.
A moral landscape however is not composed of geopolitical agents, but of moral agents with the actual capacity of taking informed decisions based on moral principles and things they value, and putting their decisions into effect based on available resources and means. So to decide what/whom morally support, my method is to identify the moral agents, see what they value, the proximity of what they value to our/my values, what means they have chosen and how they chose them, how much of the consequences ensuing from their actions was intentional, etc. assess moral reasons and take side accordingly.
Since you place responsibilities to power structures instead of real moral agents and assess moral costs based on a priori metrics (like death toll) without taking into account what people actually value, your position is simply preposterous in this case. And that’s all from my own assumptions.
But within your own assumptions, there are still lots of things to clarify. If expansionism is a causal reaction to threats, since there are always direct and indirect multi-causal links between competing powers’ perceived security threats and reactions then all powers in competition are potentially causally accountable of not some but all current deaths provoked by power struggles, so there is no reason to side with one or the other based on death counts. You could still claim that it's not matter of taking side anyways, just matter of supporting whatever it takes to end the war in the shortest term, but then would you support as well Palestinians submitting to whatever Israeli demands are and Yemeni submitting to whatever Saudi Arabian demands to end hostilities as soon as possible? Wouldn't this line of reasoning simply support whatever the status quo is, since no power can be radically challenged without risking meterial wellbeing and life? Besides, what if this “whatever it takes” for peace will likely increase the chance of more or greater wars around the world in the near future and so more deaths and misery? Multi-polarity indeed increased the probability of proxy wars, as the Cold War proves, if not wars, as the 2 past World Wars and colonial wars prove. Finally, I don’t even get why your moral assessment of competing great powers should be limited to the number deaths or misery provoked in proxy wars and not also in the standard of life and prosperity within their established sphere of influence. Why aren’t these metrics worth taking into account for moral considerations?


> Do you support those who do?

No I don’t support those who throw innocent civilians under tanks. Do you support the Russian soldiers who drive tanks to kill Ukrainian civilians ?


> Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

So what?

> Yes, but that's why the US's tactics in Yemen matter, because you're claiming to "take them into account”.

> Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?

Nowhere obviously, because I’m talking about the war between Ukraine and Russia. As I said, if you want to talk about the West and Yemen, open a thread, try to prove this claim “the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths” and I will give you my feedback. My "take them into account” is focused on the topic under discussion, the war between Ukraine and Russia, not on any topic that comes to your mind based on your assumptions, which I’m still processing, and probably reject due to my assumptions.

The Finnish story is not just "fighting the Russians".

It is fighting the Russians, then mutually agreeing war is not a good thing, and burying the hatchet, and learning to live as neighbour's with mutual respect (at least for a time) and mutual benefit wherever possible. Finland even paid war reparations to the Soviet Union. That price for independence was also paid, yet I never see mentioned. — boethius

Ah yes...and don't forget Finlandization. The wonderful term that the Germans invented to describe our relationship with our beloved Eastern neighbor. Just look how nicely the Presidents of Russia and Finland (the one that looked like Conan O'Brien) hold hands with a glass of champange. Just twelve years ago:

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet. — Isaac

Flirting with victim blaming?
(Was about to type something about "bending over", but nevermind, we might be in mixed company.)
That pragmatic approach is sort of understandable enough. Yet, don't forget that people have been (systematically) killed by the hands of empires that rolled in before. Poland (having taking over half the Ukrainian refugees in by the way) would be an appropriate example. ^{(‡ below)}
Putin is to blame, unless he's mindless like the Black Death or something.
Ukraine won't be joining NATO ← Putin's main demand met, and has been for a bit now.
I guess a good 4 million has fled, and some are now returning, including children.


_{‡ Piotrowski's (2005) estimates of Polish World War 2 casualties:}


I'm vaguely reminded of ...

President Kekkonen used to invite world leaders and other officials to his private sauna at the height of the Cold War — Sauna Diplomacy, the Finnish Recipe

The picture of having a heated discussion with Finns during the height of the Cold War with alcohol involved sounds just too intriguing to pass up. Material for a great artist, maybe? Could call it "The Sauna"

These are a set of five Finnish high relief wood carvings of a traditional Finnish Sauna or 'Taking Sauna". Almost everyone in Finland either has a wood burning sauna in their back yards or has access to a sauna. The "taking sauna" is a part of Finnish culture

.

https://bluestarrgallery.blogspot.com/2013/03/finnish-high-relief-wood-carvings-of.html

Just look how nicely the Presidents of Russia and Finland (the one that looked like Conan O'Brien) — ssu

I am very impressed with Finland. Keep up the propaganda. :)

Seriously, though, I think it instructive to take some sort of a detour and look at Finlands' history and culture. History being a series of accidents, maybe the same accidents could be made to happen elsewhere. Many factors at play - population density, foreign policy, education..

And the famous Finland schools with no homework.

Maybe there is something there: being forced to do homework in authoritarian school system have somehow closed the minds of President Putin and President Zelenskyy to look at authoritarian measures, to use force for what should be accomplished through natural devotion to duty? Maybe that is what the powers that be want.

Must be a thesis out there somewhere along those lines, psychology professor?

Ok, let's make it super clear. The conclusion is originally more: "Teaching critical thinking is needed to help people see past authoritarian propaganda." So, dividing them into two inductive arguments: — Christoffer

I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to one form of government. Let's look at all forms of government. Do they teach effective criticism of government? Do they teach about money at all - this is Robert Kyiosaki's thesis - schools will not teach about money - why?

Teach them to ask this question in schools, for a change:

Is “democracy” really America’s cause? Is “autocracy” really America’s great adversary in the battle for the future?

Not all autocrats, after all, are our enemies, nor are all democrats our reliable friends.

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-global-democracy-americas-mission-159244

This authoritarian mindset is an unavoidable consequence of the American education system. Indeed, while so-called education reformers insist on more tests, pushing schools to emulate the Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean educational systems, they miss a big piece of the puzzle: educators in those countries consider their systems a failure. Despite performing better than American children on certain international standardized tests, Chinese educators have noted that Chinese students have also demonstrated a “lack of social and practical skills, absence of self-discipline and imagination, loss of curiosity and passion for learning.”

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/transforming_americas_schools_into_authoritarian_instruments_of_compli

That's an interesting equivocation there. If you wanted to ask a question about Stalin and FDR, you should've asked that question. Or is this that game where you keep adding qualifiers to a question and move the goal posts until I agree with you? Yeah, not interested.

Also, check out when FDR was no longer president, when Stalin died and when NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established. Let me know the dates please.