I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons.

I'm American, and would give my life in defense of my country. I still condemn it pretty regularly. It's a stressful balancing act that I'm used to. I think maybe some haven't mastered the technique, so they enter into ambivalence where they really know better.

That's my theory, anyway

As I said, it's not a physics question, it's a metaphysics one. The failure to recognize the difference between everyday or scientific reality and metaphysics is the biggest failure of most posters on the forum. — T Clark

This is squarely false. It is a physics question. There are a number of quantum theories which vary considerably in how they explain quantum experiments, and none of them confirm your folk notions of reality.

You have misrepresented the scientific field in this thread and should by no means be talking down to anyone else.

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes. — Olivier5

Yes. The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period

There are ways of accommodating within a a single metaphysics the situation in physics that the world appears to work differently at different scales. — Joshs

Just to clarify, in terms of our folk notions of reality, QM goes far beyond saying that things work differently on a small scale. QM suggests that there is no distinct reality outside measurement events (which don't require consciousness, but human activity is a kind of measurement.)

So when you say physicists are realists, that doesn't necessarily answer the OP. If the OP had some sort of Newtonian picture of the world, then the answer is yes, QM says that a fair portion of that absolute realm is not real.

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals.

It's nauseating.

Yes. If you decide to ignore all counterarguments, that tends to be the outcome. — Isaac

I was trying to put the arguments into words. We ran into a ditch somewhere around expecting Ukraine to accept a compromise that Putin has not offered.

I didn't ask for your assessment. I think you know why.

We shouldn't forget how many Ukrainians have died too. This is a huge conventional war and likely it will cost over 100 000 killed in less than a year, which just tells about the ferocity of the fighting. — ssu

Unbelievable. The region won't recover in our lifetime, huh?

I'll let you have the last word here, if you so desire. — Manuel

Well, my last word is that I was earnestly trying to understand your point of view because you have a history of being remarkably reasonable.

And then I witnessed that times had changed.

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine declares victory against a nuclear power, Russia declares "denazification" successful.

What's negotiated are the cities, which Russia gives back and maybe gets a token piece of territory. — Manuel

Something like that I think could be doable. — Manuel

Manuel, you're not being serious.

I see.

You insist on using the word "surrender". If you say "compromise", then I agree with the last statement. — Manuel

When there's a compromise, both parties walk away with something they wanted. What sort of compromise could there have been during this war?

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. — Manuel

I think in large part that's Zelensky.

It's a matter of priority: do you think saving many, many lives is worth stopping the war, or are you confident that escalation will defeat Russia? If you think the latter is the case, then of course you wouldn't want to surrender. My intuitions don't lead to that conclusion. But in geopolitical affairs, people differ and are often wrong about what ends up happening. — Manuel

I'm having trouble following your thinking, which is all I was trying to do.

Your intuitions say that Russia won't be defeated, so Ukraine should have surrendered in order to save lives? I'm just asking.

The line between middle class and rich is vanishing. It is difficult to distinguish a real rich person from a middle class worker. — javi2541997

Spain doesn't have a wealthy elite?

Well, you can think of it in terms of "surrender". But you can also think of it as "saving lives", and potentially the planet.

Or instead of "surrender", we can call it a "stop" in violence. But sadly, this isn't the route being followed. — Manuel

So would you argue that Ukraine should have surrendered in order to save lives? I don't think you can escape the use of that word. It's just what it's called when you bow to your aggressor.

Yet the war seems to be going well for the Ukrainians... :up: — ssu

Yep. They say about 60,000 Russian soldiers have died. That's how many Americans died in the whole Vietnam war.

No, we are not. I promise we are a normal middle class family. I don't even understand why the fees increased that much in contrast to their income — javi2541997

It's a bad idea to diminish the economic standing of the middle class. I'm guessing the tax was meant for the rich, but the rich were able to shove it down hill to the middle class. That's not good.

But now the percentage increased to 43 % — javi2541997

It sounds like your family is pretty well off?

It turns out there is no debate. Interesting.

frank

No. Brussels even recommends to Spain to try to reduce the debt with "inderect" taxes such as "Value-added tax" and not by taxing income or capital earnings. — javi2541997

A value-added tax would fall on manufacturers? Maybe Spain is afraid that would chase off jobs producers?

Why the heavy emphasis on reducing debt?

I never advocated any course of action for Ukraine - that would be highly presumptuous. — Tzeentch

I see. Then what was your perspective on the situation?

What it does though is relieve the West from the cost and the responsibility for the war. — SophistiCat

I was trying to articulate the sides of the debate. It looks like I failed.

But speaking of the cost of the war, what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? Fear for their own safety? Or what?

Yes. They are so abusively high. Our socialist government is destroying the middle class. — javi2541997

Is this driven by Brussels?

Reminds me of MalcolmX accusing Martin Luther king of being an Uncle Tom.

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened

I don't think those who advocated Ukraine's surrender to Russia had any kind of resistance in mind. I think @Tzeentch, for instance, was concerned with casualties of an on going war. @Manuel was worried about escalation.

If I understand correctly, they're saying the cost of standing up to aggression isn't worth any gains from it. Surrender assures peace and save lives.

frank
Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. — ssu

I see.

If you have a point, please make it more explicit.

I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.

The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace.

Opposing strategies, same goal.

I am opposed to abusive taxation in both income and capital gains. I just want to justify that we can live formidably with less fees of taxation — javi2541997

Are taxes abusively high where you are?

Are you opposed to income tax? Or just capital gains taxes? Or what?

sigh

"For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, top government leaders in Moscow are making explicit nuclear threats and officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir V. Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine.". NYT

I figured they've been doing this continuously.

Successful economy? That’s capitalism.
Failed economy? Socialism. — Xtrix

You could engage others in discussion to find out what they really think. And grow a sense of humor...

One of the main important facts of this debate indeed. But according to Xtrix China becoming the most powerful country in the world thanks to the aperture to market and capitalism is just meaningless. — javi2541997

It's very meaningful. Capitalism is a two edged sword. Capitalist economies tend to run hot. When the population adapts to a hot economy, there's pressure on the political system to keep it hot. Sooner or later it will melt down.

Bottom line: capitalism is dangerous, but it does create prosperity. That's the reason it's so enduring.

:up:

So they’re mixed economies — Xtrix

Sure. Japan and S. Korea are capitalist countries. That statement does not entail that the government has no role in the economy. It just means industry is privately owned and profit driven as opposed to a centrally planned.

We're only talking about this because you want to divert from your misinformation about China. China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. Again, this is not controversial.

Two mental giants — Xtrix

There's no need to get personal. :lol:

The Japanese government is very much a servant of private owned industry. This gives Japanese companies a bit of an advantage over American ones where there's the legacy of conflict between government and manufacturing.

So let me know when you’ve done the bare minimum of homework on issues you have no clue about. — Xtrix

omg. Please stop

sacred figure of the Emperor :joke: — javi2541997

He's a genius!

Japan and South Korea are not meaningless.
They are not capitalist.

Somebody needs to tell Honda they're state owned. :lol:

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. If this is not capitalism, what economical system we are talking about? Plot twist: it is not socialism... — javi2541997

Exactly. Their command economy was stagnant and left hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty. Transitioning to a private, profit based system turned things around dramatically. For all it's faults, we have to give this to capitalism: it works.