"Identity" in mathematics is equality. — Metaphysician Undercover

A certain kind of equality, identity is an equation that us true for all values of its variables.

An equation might be true for some variables, like x+1=3 is true if (iff?) x=2. There's also equality, but not identity. Hence equality isn't always identity.

Law of identity, that each thing is identical with itself, isn't actually math, but general philosophy. So I guess the law of identity is simply a=a or 1=1. Yet math it's actually crucial to compare mathematical objects to other (or all other) mathematical objects. Hence defining a set "ssu" by saying "ssu" = "ssu" doesn't say much if anything. Hence the usual equations c=a+b.

It's very hard to think here that math would go against logic, so this is more of a mixture of definitions here. It's like comparing what in Physics is work and what in economics / sociology is work. The definitions are totally different.

For starters, I think the whole monetary system will sooner or later collapse. But that later can be in 10, perhaps even 50 years. And if it happens in 50 years, nobody cares about it.

Preparing for the worst is always sound. But here's the problem: we never do it. Unfortunately.

And this is the problem for all the markets, actually.

Hence I think that the Central Bankers can and will come up with various arrangements to keep the markets from collapsing. And the private sector, the pension funds, will be an actor they might use or abuse here. Already pensions will be a problem in future years because of the aging of the people in various countries. The usual way to handle it is to get new laws that will diminish the pensions of the people that are now babies and children: they aren't voting yet. But when there's private money around so much as the pension funds have, there's an incentive to use them and hide the central bank intervention into being just actions or private market participants.

Also, meta: This thread, "Infinity," is active, and I keep getting mentions for it and replying. But this thread does not show up in my front-page feed! Anyone seeing this or know what's going on? — fishfry

It's in the Lounge.

It was deemed not Philosophical enough, or just math. Or lousy math. :yikes:

The reason is that the Ukraine crisis thread and the Israel-Palestine thread (Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank) along other political threads got so heated and ugly, the admins decided to put them into the Lounge (meaning not Philosophical debates). Having to do with the appearance that a Philosophy Forum site would discuss eloquently Philsophy, I guess. :snicker:

I don't think mathematics/set theory deals with identity at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you can find that definition for me, I'll take a look. Then we can discuss whether "identity" in mathematics is consistent with the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok,

Even if the discussion has moved on, I'll just point out this, what identity in math is and why math does deal with identity:

In mathematics, an identity is an equality relating one mathematical expression A to another mathematical expression B, such that A and B (which might contain some variables) produce the same value for all values of the variables within a certain range of validity.[1] In other words, A = B is an identity if A and B define the same functions, and an identity is an equality between functions that are differently defined.

or in an other way:

An identity is an equation that is true for all values of the variables. For example:

(x+y)2 = (x2+2xy+y2)

The above equation is true for all possible values of x and y, so it is called an identity.

And what it isn't:

An identity is true for any value of the variable, but an equation is not. For example the equation
3x = 12
is true only when x=4, so it is an equation, but not an identity.

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides. — BitconnectCarlos

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea. The rhetoric is one thing, the actions are another thing.

Do notice that countries like Saudi-Arabia, UAE and even Russia have all asked both sides to ease tensions, btw.

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia, just ask which country has attacked it last? Israel or Iran? Well, Israel has actually never attacked Saudi-Arabia (that I at least know of). Iran has, just a while ago. And the US didn't come to the help of the Saudis (which they likely remember). Are there real tensions between the Saudis and Israel? Well, The Saudis have deployed some forces to the war theatre at some time, but hasn't been engaged in open war with Israel.

Or just look at Iran.

Notice that this is quite the same playbook as Iran did with Trump: it did attack with ballistic missiles US bases after the killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. At least with the US this didn't follow up with Trump then going another step in the escalation ladder. Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes.

Set theoretic axioms can be difficult to anyone, so let's think about this.

What do you think identity in mathematics / set theory is?

So the axiom extensionality is that sets are equal if they have the same elements, if I understand it correctly.

So I think then the question for you, @Metaphysician Undercover, is how is the identity different between two sets that have the same elements?

Because you say "to read the axiom of extensionality as indicating identity rather than as indicating equality is a misinterpretation", it seems that you think this is different. A lay person would think that a set defined by it's elements.

And please just look how identity is defined in mathematics, and you'll notice what @fishfry is talking about.

__ __ __

Nice to see you, @fishfry on the forum again! It's been a while. :grin:

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Arab muslim armies were prevailing over Israel, I would expect Israel to fight to the last man. Israel would qualify as an "enemy population" from the arab perspective. — BitconnectCarlos

And this just shows how difficult it is to get a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

But I wouldn't expect the arabs to send in aid trucks or coddle the Israelis there. It would truly be genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

Why not would they? They still need to have relations with European and Asian states. They couldn't do it unnoticed, that's for sure.

Right, simple minded people admire dissidents for speaking truth against power in their own country where they have an impact, that's why rival powers support dissidents in other countries not in theirs. — neomac

Indeed.

At least academic professors in the West can act like "dissidents" because they have a tenure and there is an Overton window for free speech.

Unfortunately for media people, there isn't that free lunch. And for some of them, if the doors have been closed in their own country, have no other place than to get the support from rival countries.

What a stupid way of characterizing things. It’s like being in middle school. Embarrassing. — Mikie

Well, just look at the discussion of some here in PF about a) The Isreali Palestinians conflict or heck, even about the US Elections / Trump / Biden.

How many come out and say Trump did something good and bad. People would be confused on which side you are on. That's important for Americans.

Nope. Not what was said. — Mikie

That's exactly what he says.

Listen carefully, at (1:00):

"I'm here, I have a shared responsibility what the US government does...and to an extent, I can do something about it".

And later, when talking about Iranian dissidents (at 1:30):

"Nobody asks them, is there something good about Iranian foreign policy, it's not their job to say what is good in Iranian foreign policy["

And later states that if Iranian dissidents say something about Israel, we don't "respect them for that", but for being Iranian dissidents. So it's obvious that the "role" is to criticize your own country for Chomsky.

That's exactly my point here. And actually, since I am not more informed than others (as you portray me to think of myself here), for example @jorndoe says eloquently the obvious outcome that this can lead:

Criticizing one's own society is all cool, and important, except when it tends to tunnel vision (or Kremlin-blindness, apropos). — jorndoe

I find it rather perplexing: — neomac

It is perplexing. Yet the name of the first political book of the linguist, The Responsibility of Intellectuals, tells it all. Chomsky and others see as their role to criticize the US while to critique other countries "isn't their role". Yet when you just criticize one actor and be totally silent on everything else, people can draw conclusions.

If authoritarian countries are insulated from internal criticism, people can't do much to change it so it will remain authoritarian. — neomac

Or simple be ignorant of how authoritarian they are.

Besides, the free world can be infiltrated and intoxicated by foreign propaganda of authoritarian regimes to weaken the overwhelming foreign power that contains them . — neomac

The smartest propaganda doesn't outright lie. It just picks part of the story and forgets the part that would talk against the agenda at.

And people want simple straightforward stories. Not a story like "Country does a bad stuff X, yet it has done good things like Y and supported very good proposals Z". You have to be for or against!!!

You really have no idea how the world works, in that case. — Mikie

Then educate me. :confused:

but leaving stupid bullshit aside for a moment: the United States is by far the world’s superpower and has been for decades, beginning only now to be rivaled by China. — Mikie

So?

Hence when it's only Superpower and so superior in everything, why was it then defeated by the Taleban, the same Taleban George Bush vowed to do away with?

If it's so powerful, why does it feel that Israel is calling the shots and the US simply follows?

So yes, the US is one player, and a major one, shaping world affairs. — Mikie

And that's simply my point. US one actor, the largest, and Russia is another, China another and the local countries are also. If you don't take this account, then it might seem to you quite arbitrary just why someplace the US prevails and somewhere it doesn't.

Is the US a “bully”? If this fails under “a narrative” in your mind, then you can be easily ignored. — Mikie

No, it's not in my mind. If you do read my posts.

I think the US had done a lot of good and it has gained it's position with very skillful foreign policy, especially in Europe. Sometimes it hasn't been so good. Yet many indeed think it's very bad, like Noam Chomsky.But that's what he think he ought to do. And that the case with many want to be critical about the US. I think here below Chomsky tells it quite clearly why this criticism against the US.



And btw I don't agree with this: you don't have to be a dissident, you can support your country when it does something good.

Is this a joke or are you really just incapable of understanding the fairly simple idea? — Mikie

All those interventions, including the theoretical ones aren't fairly simple.

All are quite unique. And so are the "interventions". Giving just weapons to a country fighting a war or invading it are two totally different things with different consequences. Secondly, it's not a world where first the US acts and then everybody else responds. The US is just one player among others, even if it is a big player. And other countries do have agency. Also the domestic groups inside a country have agency. This all is simply ignored with an American narrative, either "the US fighting the Cold War against Soviet Union", "the US fighting the Global War on Terror" or the favorite Chomskyite "US being a bully to everybody else".

With all the above narratives the world looks simple and the US central. Not so if you start from the viewpoint from others.

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza. — boethius

Isreal got it's ironclad support automatically from Joe Biden. I think they will continue with the Rafah operation when the time comes.

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons). — boethius

For both Israel and Iran the "war" between them is quite OK, because they don't share a land border. Simple geography limits the war here. What Israel can do is some limited strikes on Iranian territory, and vice versa. And in reality, neither side is willing to use nuclear weapons (even if Iran would have them). And Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, hasn't build it's nuclear program in one centralized place which can be taken out. It's been preparing for the attack from Israel and the US for decades now.

But as you said, the whole thing starting from the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus got Bibi where he wants to be. He's the wartime prime minister and as you can see, it's the possible replacements of him like Benny Gantz who have to be bellicose against Iran now. And now when Iran has directly attacked Israel, Bibi has can choose the moment when he retaliates back at Iranian targets, which will then get Iran to respond. "Genocide-Joe" will automatically declare support of Israel and participate, just like he did now, with shooting down the Iranian missiles. With bigger and smaller US bases all around Syria and US, it's very easy to get US in this mess. And even if those aren't attack, a larger attack from Israel will get the US President to fight alongside Israel. There's no doubt about it.

The "coalition" that Bibi is now talking about is likely Israel, the US and the UK. Israel will just asses Iran's capabilities as now it has seen them against Nevatim air base and Mt Hermon. What Nevatim had was F-35 fighters, which likely weren't effected. And notice that Iran didn't attack against Sdot Micha air base, where Israel's Jericho III nukes likely are stored.

Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet you are not a soldier and not even in the region.

But on the other hadn, even before Oct 7th, from 2016:

(Times of Israel, 8th March 2016) Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

So firm public support for ethnic cleansing and the apartheid state even years ago!

And now:

a recent study conducted by an Israeli sample and campaign company Direct Polls affirming that the majority of the Israeli settler society is in favor of mass displacement in Gaza.

The study surveys a representative sample of Israeli public opinion on their stance regarding the Israeli authorities' efforts to "encourage the voluntary immigration" of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

The results show that:

68% are very supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip";
15% are quite supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip"

Wonderful village people on the other side too.

And the conflict will go on... and there's a real possibility that we will see that "voluntary immigration", ethnic cleansing, of Gaza.

An interesting development: What is Jordan's role in this?

(AlArabiya News) Jordan will be Iran’s “next target” if it “cooperates” with Israel amid Iranian missile and drone attacks against Israel, the semi-official Fars news agency reported early Sunday, while two regional security sources said Jordanian jets downed dozens of Iranian drones flying across northern and central Jordan heading to Israel.

Iran’s military is “carefully monitoring the movements of Jordan during the punitive attack against the Zionist regime, and if Jordan intervenes, it will be the next target,” Fars reported, citing, an “informed source” in Iran’s armed forces.

“Necessary warnings were given to Jordan and other regional countries before the operation,” the agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), quoted the source as saying.

According to the two regional sources, the drones were brought down in the air on the Jordanian side of the Jordan Valley and were heading in the direction of Jerusalem. Others were intercepted close to the Iraqi-Syrian border. They gave no further details.

Naturally shooting down armed drones flying in your airspace is totally legitimate thing to do for Jordan. But likely Jordan doesn't want to be the first line of defense for Israel. The tiny nation has to do quite a balancing act here.

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing.

I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic. — RogueAI

Ah, that is a really fine line in the sand. Because nobody will say that they are trying "terror boming" as a tactic. And it all comes down to targeting.

I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling about the air war in 1945 as a Mustang pilot that at some time in the end of the war, they got these orders of patrolling some small area (was it 15km to 15km) and simply attack anything that moved. He and the other pilots were disgusted about the order as they didn't think it was their job to hunt and attack some cyclists or civilian people walking on some dirt road in Germany and hence they basically just flew around. But in the huge wheels of what the USAAF someone had come up with this kind of order.

It all comes down to rules of engagement. Those are defined, unfortunately, usually by the political leadership. And for the political leadership things like "revenge" or "giving a strong message" means that sometimes they want that rules of war are interpreted quite loosely. If the politicians want dead enemy soldiers or dead terrorists, the armed forces will give them want they want.

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing? — RogueAI

Just look at the scale of the bombing.

In the first six days that Israel started it's bombing of Gaza: It dropped then over 6000 bombs, which is far more than the US coalition when fighting ISIS used bombs in any month of the war.

Then compare this to for example the battle over Mosul (about 1,7 million people). There extensive bombing was used to clear out ISIS. The civilian death toll was 9 000 to 11 000. So you have now at least double, even triple figures. That tells a lot.

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — The price Mosul’s residents paid in blood to see their city freed was 9,000 to 11,000 dead, a civilian casualty rate nearly 10 times higher than what has been previously reported. The number killed in the nine-month battle to liberate the city from the Islamic State group marauders has not been acknowledged by the U.S.-led coalition, the Iraqi government or the self-styled caliphate.

But Mosul’s gravediggers, its morgue workers and the volunteers who retrieve bodies from the city’s rubble are keeping count.

Iraqi or coalition forces are responsible for at least 3,200 civilian deaths from airstrikes, artillery fire or mortar rounds between October 2016 and the fall of the Islamic State group in July 2017, according to an Associated Press investigation that cross-referenced independent databases from non-governmental organizations.

So as I've said: the US approach to urban combat would be better than the Netanyahu-lead Israeli one.

So think for yourself, when the political leadership of Israel talks of human animals, the evil city, people in Gaza being responsible for the attacks because they voted ages ago for Hamas in an election and so on. Those things do amount to the death toll.

So now Iran has had it's revenge after the 1st April attack on the consulate, which the supreme leader promised.

Likely it won't end up here. Bibi can see here an opportunity to broaden the war. At least he'll get the distraction for the Rafah operation.

People back then believed the ideas of Douhuet, which was an error. Bombing the manufacturing military base works...just as destroying air fields and other military infrastructure. It does make manufacturing more difficult, even if German simply increased it's production of war material until the end of the war simply by spreading it's manufacturing into coal mines and so on.

But just think about it yourself: assume Hitler had in 1943 some magnificient Ural-bomber aircraft that could from Northern France (perhaps simply the Luftwaffe had mastered air-to-air refuelling) hit the east coast cities of the US. Then sometime at the end of 1943 or in 1944, German bombers would have appeared out of nowhere to bomb New York with all it's lights on. At least the first strike, US cities would have had no defenses.

Yet. Do you genuinely think that kind of attack would have cowed the US not to fight anymore Germany? Do you FDR would have gotten pressure from the opposition to stop the war with Germany? HELL NO! It would have had quite opposite effect:bombings would have just shown how the enemy was real, they did pose a threat were to the US. Mainland US being attacked would simply have increased the American will to fight. It would have made the leadership to increase it's efforst even more to push the Manhattan Project etc. to go ahead. And the bombings would be part of American history and experience, just like the attack Pearl Harbour is now.

The people that would be happy about it would be Hitler and Goebbels. They could say that they are revenging the bombings of Germany and thus give something for the Nazi supporters that wanted revenge. Yet it would be irrelevant to the war and it's outcome.

Hence the idea that Douhuet marketed, that strategic bombing would shorten wars, that if civilians would be bombed would want their governments to have peace simply has the negative effect. Strategic air war on the other hand is part of air war. Just as in tactical air support and intrediction.

That is the point: without US support, Ukraine, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi government, Israel, etc., wouldn’t have lasted too long. US support is crucial. Okay, then we ask: so what? Given this fact, the further question is: Why Korea and Ukraine and Israel or Nicaragua, but not Sudan or East Timor or Nigeria or Haiti? — Mikie

So what?
What do you have against K-Pop? Of having South Korean electronic gadgets and cars? Of them being wealthy and not on the verge of famine?

Is someone invading Haiti? I think the Dominican Republic doesn't have intentions for taking the whole island to themselves (Haiti had earlier that kind of agenda).

All of these are individual cases. It's useless to make a generalization when you have such different situations and countries at hand.

In Ukraine there's a the clear cut case of international law. The clear cut case that US allies share similar objectives of keeping Ukraine independent. And the clear cut case that Ukrainians are indeed willing to defend their country.

And I would ask: what's the reason for intentionally eroding the credibility of NATO? You think NATO's useless for the US?

Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them. — BitconnectCarlos

And what do you think the German people fealt about the Nazis themselves in 1945?

How much had the Gauleiters and the Nazi party taken care of them when the Russian Steamroller broke into Germany proper?

Just ask yourself: how many Germans joined the Werwolf and how did this terrorist group to continue the struggle behave?

Just browsing Wikipedia gives an answer:

In the early months of 1945, SS Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny was involved in training recruits for the Werwolfs, but he soon discovered that the number of Werwolf cells had been greatly exaggerated and that they would be ineffective as a fighting force. Knowing, like many other Nazi leaders, that the war was lost, he decided that the Werwolfs would instead be used as part of a Nazi "underground railroad," facilitating travel along escape routes called "ratlines" that allowed thousands of SS officers and other Nazis to flee Germany after the fall of the Third Reich.

Tells enough how credible the threat of "the Werewolves" was in reality.

Yet here's the problem with when thinking too much about "enemy people". If you then continue to treat the German people as your enemies, your own actions create resistance itself, not that people are loyally following orders of a collapsed state that doesn't exist anymore. This is absolutely crucial. This also is so important in understanding just why the US really won also the peace after WW2 with Germany and Japan and that these countries are truly allies. And just why it was in East Germany where the first revolt against the Soviets erupted.

Now I don't have personally anything against you, but I do find talking about an "enemy people" disturbing, even if you likely make a separation with "enemy soldiers" and "enemy people". But the nuance is there. The enemy is a person that literally tries to kill you, if you are a soldier. That's his job and it's not a warcrime for him or her to do that when being a legal combatant. Hence even POWs are treated with the utmost caution. We aren't living in the 19th Century were you could ask an enemy officer if taken prisoner to give his word that he won't try to flee and he would stick to that. Not so now.

With enemy people, then I guess every child, every grandmother, or anyone could be a possible IED carrier or wants to kill me with a knife, so what's there to stop from killing them if they don't understand to stop at 20 meters from me? Hopefully you do understand how damning this kind of attitude towards civilian population is. It really makes a difference how you treat the people when you are the "occupier".

American soldiers and German civilians in September 1944. This and a few other pictures like it provoked the President (Truman's) order against fraternization:

Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. — neomac

OK! Thank you. :up:

The real question, which I do think is important, is how much Ukraine could trust Putin after Minsk I-III? Would Putin simply enlarge his army more, improve it, and then go later to deal with Ukraine? If Ukraine wouldn't get any help from anybody, what would be the reason not to continue some further time.

Remember that this is actually the reason why the Finnish leadership decided to join NATO. Once Putin came with this request that it should be consulted if Finland would join NATO or not (and the answer would be not), then it was the canary in the coal mine dying even before the February 23rd 2022 invasion. And once you had the invasion, there was the popular support needed by the people as to have only an "option to join NATO if necessary" wasn't anymore credible.

Just like asking foreign soldiers to inspect your military sites, to say that you have to change your constitution is something that countries can indeed oppose and to go to war about.

On the ground, it seems much different— it’s Ukrainians fighting for their country against an illegal invasion. No one doubts that. — Mikie

And they have here the agency. We are just giving them support. What's so wrong with that.

They can call it quits and there's nothing that the West can do about it, if that happens. The fact is that Russia simply isn't just going to cede back all the territory if Ukraine will be neutral.

So Ukraine should be doing just fine without American weaponry. — Mikie

Well, we aren't giving enough support.

In fact my country has given very little, because we feel we haven't enough material for ourselves even.

Come on— let’s at least admit that without US support, Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted too long. — Mikie

That's easy to admit!

Without your support South Korea wouldn't have lasted. It would all be one communist Korea.

Without your support likely Israel wouldn't have lasted either. Or would be smaller than now.

So what's your point?

I’m sure the Greek communists didn’t think so either. Or the Vietnamese. So what? — Mikie

Because their agency matters. It's not just the US fighting a war through it's proxy. It's really about the proxy itself. The biggest mistake is that Americans don't care a shit about what their proxies are fighting for. They are interested to fight "the Cold War". Or fight the "War on Terrorism". They have little or no interest on what the actual people are fighting for.

Just compare these so-called "proxies" of the US. How did the former Afghan proxy compare to let's say the Israeli Defence Forces?

The Taliban took the country in quite a similar way the US had taken the country back in 2001-2002. By negotiation and bribes. You can see this even from the documentaries done during the collapse: first the Afghan special forces were fighting the Taleban in some provincial city. Then the next night word has passed and they all gather to the local airbase and try to get into the last planes going to Kabul. And during the collapse of Kabul the Taleban sought out the Afghani President, who accepted to leave quickly with hundreds of millions of loot to a Gulf State.

Now is the IDF a similar proxy? No.

But for some reason, the Kremlin propaganda has been so successful in making Ukrainians to be somehow this kind of lost cause, which Israel isn't, which has gotten far more military support for decades and face far tinier foes that Ukraine does.

True, but Israel can’t always be sure. — Mikie

In an insurgency naturally you cannot be sure who is the "illegal combatant". But that doesn't make the civilian population an enemy". Are all the children enemies? A teen surely can fire again or be a suicide bomber. So all teens are enemies? Old pensioners? Yes, they can too.

To understand how wrong and in fact dangerous talk by @BitconnectCarlos of referring to "enemy people" is really important. "Enemy people" means that there simply aren't any civilians. This is the way to dehumanize whole people, the way to start speaking of human animals. You don't treat civilians as civilians until shown to be a combatant, but the other way around: a civilian is a combatant unless being really proven to be a civilian. And what would that be? That he or she "works for you"? It's a huge change in the whole mental way you handle the conflict.

This blatantly goes the rules of war, and for me those rules of war are important. I would follow them and I would assume my country would do so too. To think that the rules of war hinder your warfighting ability is simply false. It just stains your on justifications and your military.

Perhaps it's a very American way to think and to handle these issues, just like imprisoning all the Japanese Americans during WW2. Naturally American didn't imprison into concentration camps all the German Americans, perhaps starting from general Eisenhower himself, perhaps because they were white or simply there was too many of them. Yet even if there would have indeed been a dozen traitors among those ranks, just how important would have it been not only for the Japanese-Americans (as two-thirds of the inmates were United States citizens.), but also the US for Japanese-American soldiers having fought and died in WW2. So easily all the ideals of American or Western thought are thrown away, because of fear or the urge for revenge.

(It's no wonder that the admins wanted this thread to put into the Lounge and some complained of it being in the lounge).

And now as the war is escalating, it's just going to be worse.

Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted a month without US involvement. — Mikie

If there would be NO assistance, perhaps an arms embargo on Ukraine ...for some reason, then I guess
the only response would have been an insurgency.

But do notice that Europe combined has actually given more than the US. And apart of Hungary etc. there isn't this whimping out from supporting Ukraine like in the GOP in the US.

(Kiel Institue, 7.9.2023) Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large. A main reason is the EU’s new €50 billion “Ukraine Facility,” but also other European countries have upped their support with new multi-year packages. For the first time since the start of the war, the US is now clearly lagging behind.

Yes, this is more of the European's war and not an American war. So just thinking this is a "proxy war for the US military-industrial complex" not only disses European agency, but actually the reality, political and military, on the ground.

This is claimed to be part of the 10 points of Instambul Communque:
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan — neomac

Neomac, notice what @Tzeentch argued:

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

Where is this kind of argument was my question. Please read what I say.

Gaza Health ministry has revised the death tolls downwards to ~22k with 13k of those being Hamas according to the IDF by the way. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is here talking, Gaza Health ministry (the remnants of it) or the IDF?

I would treat palestinians like an enemy population. — BitconnectCarlos

That tells everything.

For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians.

But I guess some here on even a Philosophy Forum think otherwise.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

I don't recall hearing this. But please give an actual reference on it. And what happened to the "denazification"?

Besides, this isn't on the anymore.

It's not a proxy war to them. But who cares, it seems.

Seems to me that "lost its independence in [...]" is a wee bit exaggerated, — jorndoe

Wee! :grin:

When the Finnish Parliament voted at 188 to 8 to apply for NATO membership, some might think that nearly like in North Korea. But there weren't US troops in the Parliament when deciding this, unlike as there were when Estonian Parliament decided to join the Soviet Union. :smirk:

(Estonian Parliament making the unanimous vote to join the Soviet Union in 1940. )

The Kremlin hints at negotiations.

(Euronews, 12th April 2024) A draft Russia-Ukraine agreement negotiated in 2022 could serve as a starting point for prospective talks to end the fighting in Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Friday.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the draft document that was discussed in Istanbul in March 2022 could be “the basis for starting negotiations.” At the same time, he noted that the possible future talks would need to take into account the “new realities.”

“There have been many changes since then, new entities have been included in our constitution,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

This can be intrepeted many ways, but I think the new entities refers to the Oblasts annexed.

And naturally Russia disses any peace negotiations that Ukraine has proposed, I guess in Switzerland in June:

Russia has dismissed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s peace formula calling for Moscow to withdraw troops, pay compensation to Ukraine and face an international tribunal for its action.

↪ssu Amen. But I like to think that in every debate there is either a right answer or at least the better answer. — tim wood

If you have a right answer, you are dealing with mathematics and logic.

If the answer is better (or worse), then the next question is better for whom? Unfortunately the "better for everybody" becomes difficult to get now days.

Of course it is not an absolute restraint, but no gun-nut I've engaged with in any way will allow the conversation to get anywhere near questioning just what "shall not be infringed" actually means. — tim wood

Well, it's the typical modern day argument method: there is no room for any conversation. You simply repeat your line no matter what and simply ignore what the other one says. Any deviation from your line is like "giving your little finger to the devil". To say "This thing is this way, however..." is too complicated, too lax, as if you wouldn't have a firm opinion. Anyway, these people don't debate, they just are supporting their stance and making it clear to everybody.

It's like try to ask either a pro-choice or a pro-life person if they have exceptions to their rule. Good luck with that.

Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong: — 180 Proof

:lol:

Now that's the spirit!!!

The shortest answer I feel comfortable to give is that I take “justification” as a normative claim which one appeals to in order to ground beliefs so that they do not appear arbitrary. Therefore, the will of the people needs to be grounded on a justifying system of beliefs, which is what I think we normally refer to when talking about “the narrative”, in order to not appear arbitrary, especially to those who do not share such will or worse have to lose. — neomac

Well said.

And here we find the problem that the narratives diverge so much that they simply don't meet. At all. Nor there's any willingness to listen to other sides narrative.

One might wish to say that both Israelis and Palestinians may find an agreement for a peaceful however unjust resolution (since narratives remain incompatible) but, so far, they didn’t manage to. — neomac

Actually I think it was really close when the Cold War ended. Palestinians had angered the Gulf states by siding with Saddam and as the Cold War ended, Israel thought once the Cold War ended and the Soviet threat evaporated, the US wouldn't care much of it. Hence all the drive from Madrid talks to Oslo Accords.

But then Likud and Netanyahu understood that the US-Israeli relationship and the very successful lobby it has is also a domestic issue in the US, not a foreign policy issue. And the Arabs came back to give aid like Qatar to Hamas. So why make that "unjust" lousy negotiated peace?

The Israeli Palestinian situation is a reminder that for example in Northern Ireland they really can be happy about the Good Friday agreement. "The Troubles" could have continued even to this day.

Whatever agreement decision makers may have found at some point, they weren’t able to enforce them on either sides. — neomac

To guarantee peace, you have to have a functioning state. Egypt is one. Even Jordan is one. Yet Lebanon is a failed state. Syria has become one.

Above all, Israel would need a reason to make a peace agreement. It doesn't have any, Likud's objective of a state from the river to the sea is already quite close. And extreme Zionists can believe that they are getting there, settlement after settlement. Hamas can also look at the Oslo Accords as utter failure. Both sides can reassure themselves of the wickedness of the other side.

But I have not found a single one who will even respond to any question as to anyone who should not have a gun. — tim wood

Well, the gun nuts are not angry about the existing limitations like this:

18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison.

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests? — Moses

What larger death tolls?

War in Ukraine has larger death tolls, but it hasn't such high amounts of civilian deaths or death of children. And let's remember how few people are in Gaza and that this war has been going on for a shorter period time (aside how long the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on). Sudan has 46 million people.

Question for you, Moses: Would you be OK if the Israeli army continued it's fight against Hamas, but did allow freely food to be transported to the civilian population (which would be naturally inspected)?

The US did this in similar battles it fought in Iraq, even if it clearly understood that some of the food would end up in the bellies of the enemy combatants, yet decided that to starve civilians would be more counterproductive. And it tried to kill the insurgents by other means than hunger. As the US fought Al Qaede and Isis, it did also try to look after the civilian population when the battle was still ongoing. Or is there something wrong in the way the US did it?

And then

Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up: — 180 Proof

amen :pray: — Wayfarer

Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion.

You can't compress a random sequence of characters or a random collection of objects, you can only describe it, and that description will be 1:1. — Wayfarer

That's what I tried to say, but that's a better way saying it. And the statement describing "information" is basically about this inability of compression. I guess.

- chaos doesn't contain or convey information of any kind. — Wayfarer

I think the problem is that the meaning of "information" here is quite specific and doesn't relate to what we usually think of "information". Perhaps using the term "raw data" would be more appropriate. Data refers to "things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation", so that isn't helpful either. I think people would understand the difference between "information" and "data" better.

And if someone thinks that a random sequence if continued to infinity has the all the information in the World, shows just how difficult it is for us to grasp infinity.