have ears from numerous sources that Trump really wants this. gotta grab them minerals by the pussy

Suppose one is faced with two options: (a) life under an oppressor or (b) killing the would-be oppressor.

It is quite consistent, and defendable, to choose option (a). Some would say that option (a) is the more compassionate choice, for both the oppressor and the oppressed. Some would add that if (a) is indeed such a superior choice, then it would not be compassionate to encourage another person to choose (b) (say through verbal encouragement, or by handing that person a weapon).

People who take the above stance will look favorably on the prospect of peace deals, even if these deals are "unfair" when assessed in terms of money, land, or political power. Such people need not offer general political support to the parties to these deals.

  On 3/4/2025 at 9:13 PM, decibal cooper said:

also very weird to me that arguing for a ceasefire of a major war gets ppl so pissed off on here.

c'mon man...no one on here is arguing that they WANT this war to continue. this seems pretty clear to me at least. any recent arguments are because you keep saying essentially that Ukraine should go ahead and give the hostile aggressor, Russia, what it wants in order to bring about a ceasefire. this is what ppl disagree with you about! if you take this stance, then you are more or less giving your approval to the fact that it's ok for the Russian military to attack Ukraine unprovoked, kill tens of thousands of innocent people, destroy infrastructure, take over any land they want, and Ukraine should just bend over and give it to them to make them stop. you brought up morals earlier. I mean does this seem right to you? it doesn't seem right to me at all...the ceasefire "deal" I've seen you mention is nothing more than gibberish that gives Russia everything and Ukraine nothing. remember, Putin is also lying his ass off when he says that he'll play nice once he gets the small-ish chunk of land along the Russian border / Black Sea. he wants to control the entire country and more, as he is a delusional old school commie that desires to reinstate the USSR.

if you're going to ask me - so what would you recommend then? the easy answer is Russia stops doing this. if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine, then this will end the conflict same day. the more detailed answer as to how to make this happen is I have no fucking clue! none of us do! that's why we're now into year 3 godawful quagmire. well actually I'd say if Putin went bye bye then yeah, this conflict would come to an end. Putin's demise will need to come from in-house though as to not set off WW3. but uh, yeah, that's not an easy play.

  On 3/4/2025 at 10:04 PM, auxien said:

have ears from numerous sources that Trump really wants this.

i'm sure elon is whispering in his ear about it too.. batteries for electric cars

  On 3/4/2025 at 7:48 PM, decibal cooper said:

You are a bitch made warmongering fucking retard is my opinion of you 

lol

they have couple's therapy

https://www.betterhelp.com

  On 3/4/2025 at 9:13 PM, decibal cooper said:

1) also very weird to me that arguing for a ceasefire of a major war gets ppl so pissed off on here. Any way please do not bait me by quoting me in the political threads haha. I can’t trust myself to not respond, thought I could but I cannot, very pathetic for me. Need a break from this place for a while. Until I return you 2) warmongers have fun with the analysis and so forth, adieu

1) This is such disingenuous bullshit.

2) I don't think you know what the word "warmonger" means.

Look at these warmongers Ukraine...handing over their nukes to Russia in 1994.

Watch Marco Rubio pledge support for US vow to defend Ukraine after it gave up its nuclear weapons

Here is his full speech from 2014 where he talks about Russian agitators, and the need to defend Ukraine. What happened to this man's spine?

Watch Rubio describe Putin accurately, and Pete Hegseth (fuck what a clown) discuss US obligations:

What pause in US military aid could mean for Ukraine

  On 3/4/2025 at 10:04 PM, auxien said:

have ears from numerous sources that Trump really wants this. gotta grab them minerals by the pussy

Expand  

There is only extortion.

  On 3/4/2025 at 10:19 PM, joseph said:

Suppose one is faced with two options: (a) life under an oppressor or (b) killing the would-be oppressor.

It is quite consistent, and defendable, to choose option (a). Some would say that option (a) is the more compassionate choice, for both the oppressor and the oppressed. Some would add that if (a) is indeed such a superior choice, then it would not be compassionate to encourage another person to choose (b) (say through verbal encouragement, or by handing that person a weapon).

People who take the above stance will look favorably on the prospect of peace deals, even if these deals are "unfair" when assessed in terms of money, land, or political power. Such people need not offer general political support to the parties to these deals.

Expand  

In what way is it defensible to choose option (a)? There is no way to defend the reality of life under an oppressor. Thankfully, this is not 4chan "philosophy", there are a third and fourth option here, which are:

c) push the oppressor out of your territory, and ensure he cannot re-enter to try and oppress again; and,

d) capture the oppressor, put him and his accomplices on trial providing them with due process.

  On 3/5/2025 at 2:12 AM, chenGOD said:

In what way is it defensible to choose option (a)? There is no way to defend the reality of life under an oppressor. Thankfully, this is not 4chan "philosophy", there are a third and fourth option here, which are:

c) push the oppressor out of your territory, and ensure he cannot re-enter to try and oppress again; and,

d) capture the oppressor, put him and his accomplices on trial providing them with due process.

Expand  

The issue was about choosing between options (a) and (b). Options (c) and (d) are (in principle) distinct from options (a) and (b), but are difficult to carry out in practice if one is committed to avoiding (b).
 

Here's an argument for (a) over (b) (it's an argument against killing in general): Killing has bad long-term consequences for one's own (e.g. mental) well-being—worse than the long-term effects of life under an oppressor.

  On 3/5/2025 at 2:38 AM, joseph said:

The issue was about choosing between options (a) and (b). Options (c) and (d) are (in principle) distinct from options (a) and (b), but are difficult to carry out in practice if one is committed to avoiding (b).
 

Here's an argument for (a) over (b) (it's an argument against killing in general): Killing has bad long-term consequences for one's own (e.g. mental) well-being—worse than the long-term effects of life under an oppressor.

Expand  

Do you have some sort of proof for your defense or is that just, like, your opinion man?

There is no difficulty in carrying out either C or D while avoiding B, criminals are tried in court with due process all the time even after committing heinous crimes such as murder or rape.

  On 3/5/2025 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

Do you have some sort of proof for your defense or is that just, like, your opinion man?

Neither. My claim was/is that a particular stance towards killing can be consistently held, and even defended. I presented one defense. It is not a conclusive proof, but conclusive proofs do not really exist.

  On 3/5/2025 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no difficulty in carrying out either C or D while avoiding B, 

Ever? I think capturing or otherwise repelling an invading military force without killing would be tremendously difficult. But I don't say that it's impossible.  

  On 3/5/2025 at 2:56 AM, joseph said:

Neither. My claim was/is that a particular stance towards killing can be consistently held, and even defended. I presented one defense. It is not a conclusive proof, but conclusive proofs do not really exist.

Ever? I think capturing or otherwise repelling an invading military force without killing would be tremendously difficult. But I don't say that it's impossible.  

Fair point on the defense. I would argue that killing in self-defense is less damaging to the psyche than living under constant oppression where one never knows what or when the next psychological or physical terror will occur.

I was referring to killing the oppressor, which in this case is Putin and his cronies. They can be pushed out, they can be captured.

  On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 AM, chenGOD said:

I would argue that killing in self-defense is less damaging to the psyche than living under constant oppression where one never knows what or when the next psychological or physical terror will occur.

This is not clear to me at all. Offering the whole world an unconditional stance against killing can do a lot for one's sense of wellbeing. And while killing and oppression do occur very often in this world, "constant" oppression seems to be rare, or perhaps even impossible. Anyone lacking the freedom to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment, say, may be said to be "constantly" oppressed in some sense. But in practice this will not prevent them from doing some good for themselves or for others. The level of oppression will be higher one day, and lower the next. As long as one can sleep one can master lucid dreaming and have a lot of fun then, if at no other times. 

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:16 AM, joseph said:

"constant" oppression seems to be rare, or perhaps even impossible.

I'm sorry if this seems rude but this is a very sheltered perspective - ask North Koreans, Russians, or Chinese how they feel about speaking out against their government. Ask journalists who reported on Myanmar's brutal authoritarian regime and found themselves thrown in Insein Prison (I use this example because I've met journalists who suffered inhumane psychological torture in that prison and you can see the effect on them years after). This oppression is ongoing, pervasive, and persistent. Many other examples such as victims of domestic violence who suffer oppression and trauma for years.

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:16 AM, joseph said:

Offering the whole world an unconditional stance against killing can do a lot for one's sense of wellbeing.

It can indeed, assuming there is no other force acting against that stance.

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:43 AM, chenGOD said:

I'm sorry if this seems rude but this is a very sheltered perspective - ask North Koreans, Russians, or Chinese how they feel about speaking out against their government. Ask journalists who reported on Myanmar's brutal authoritarian regime and found themselves thrown in Insein Prison (I use this example because I've met journalists who suffered inhumane psychological torture in that prison and you can see the effect on them years after). This oppression is ongoing, pervasive, and persistent. Many other examples such as victims of domestic violence who suffer oppression and trauma for years.

But one only wants to speak one's mind in certain moments. At other moments there are other concerns. And those other avenues for doing good will not typically be blocked even by the most oppressive regimes.

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:43 AM, chenGOD said:

It can indeed, assuming there is no other force acting against that stance.

No outside force can act against a stance like that. 

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:54 AM, joseph said:

But one only wants to speak one's mind in certain moments. At other moments there are other concerns. And those other avenues for doing good will not typically be blocked even by the most oppressive regimes.

Those certain moments are when oppression is at its ugliest, but the other avenues for doing good that you note are certainly blocked constantly in North Korea, Myanmar etc.

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:54 AM, joseph said:

No outside force can act against a stance like that. 

In theory sure. In practice, absolutely outside forces can act against those stances. We see it all the time with state-controlled media, in-group thinking, and other forms of psychological oppression. There is always physical oppression of the stance as well - jailing dissidents, or in the case of Russia, defenestration as state policy.

  On 3/5/2025 at 6:08 AM, chenGOD said:

the other avenues for doing good that you note are certainly blocked constantly in North Korea, Myanmar etc.

Which ones?

  On 3/5/2025 at 6:08 AM, chenGOD said:

In theory sure. In practice, absolutely outside forces can act against those stances.

There is only one stance under discussion (or so I thought). It was the stance against killing. No one can make another person kill. 

  On 3/5/2025 at 6:13 AM, joseph said:

Which ones?

There is only one stance under discussion (or so I thought). It was the stance against killing. No one can make another person kill. 

What do you mean which ones?

Are you sure that no one can make another person kill? (yes only the one stance - my mistake there pluralizing it).

  On 3/5/2025 at 6:50 AM, chenGOD said:

What do you mean which ones?

Indeed. When you said that "[certain] avenues for doing good that you note are certainly blocked constantly in North Korea, Myanmar etc.", I thought you might have had something specific in mind. In fact I only noted one "alternative" avenue for doing good—lucid dreaming—and many other avenues could be produced. One could also list many terrible examples of coercion and oppression. 

  On 3/5/2025 at 6:50 AM, chenGOD said:

Are you sure that no one can make another person kill? 

I don't think I'm sure about any statements? But maybe I am. Certainty is a tricky business.

The claim that killing can't be coerced is a separate matter from the issue of certainty. It's out there for one to contemplate, ignore, or argue for or against if one chooses. 

  On 3/5/2025 at 7:46 AM, joseph said:

Indeed. When you said that "[certain] avenues for doing good that you note are certainly blocked constantly in North Korea, Myanmar etc.", I thought you might have had something specific in mind. In fact I only noted one "alternative" avenue for doing good—lucid dreaming—and many other avenues could be produced. One could also list many terrible examples of coercion and oppression. 

I don't think I'm sure about any statements? But maybe I am. Certainty is a tricky business.

The claim that killing can't be coerced is a separate matter from the issue of certainty. It's out there for one to contemplate, ignore, or argue for or against if one chooses. 

Expand  

IMO lucid dreaming is not a viable avenue for doing good that can be reproduced in the physical world unfortunately. Activity that exists solely in the mind is not an avenue for doing good in the physical world. There needs to be an interaction in the physical world (or world 2 if you are Popperian). This is where the oppressive systems of autocratic states will block those potential avenues.

I think falling back on certainty as being tricky is a cop-out, but nonetheless, I am certain that killing can be coerced. For examples, see the Charles Manson family murders, see child soldiers in sadly many countries, but a prominent example is Dominic Ongwen. In a broader sense, all military action resulting in death is coercion to murder, because soldiers must be taught to fear and hate their enemies.

  On 3/5/2025 at 5:43 AM, chenGOD said:

I'm sorry if this seems rude but this is a very sheltered perspective - ask North Koreans, Russians, or Chinese how they feel about speaking out against their government. Ask journalists who reported on Myanmar's brutal authoritarian regime and found themselves thrown in Insein Prison (I use this example because I've met journalists who suffered inhumane psychological torture in that prison and you can see the effect on them years after). This oppression is ongoing, pervasive, and persistent. Many other examples such as victims of domestic violence who suffer oppression and trauma for years.

It can indeed, assuming there is no other force acting against that stance.

Expand  

just wondering why arent you including america in these comparisons

  On 3/5/2025 at 9:45 AM, Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo said:

just wondering why arent you including america in these comparisons

Because there is no comparison you absolute weapon.

  On 3/5/2025 at 8:19 AM, chenGOD said:

IMO lucid dreaming is not a viable avenue for doing good that can be reproduced in the physical world unfortunately. Activity that exists solely in the mind is not an avenue for doing good in the physical world. There needs to be an interaction in the physical world (or world 2 if you are Popperian). This is where the oppressive systems of autocratic states will block those potential avenues.

The lucid dreaming example

Lucid dreaming is just one way of doing good, though perhaps not the kind of social good introduced here. Good is more general than social good.

Why was lucid dreaming mentioned? To show how hard it is for an oppressive political regime to block off all avenues for improving one’s own mental state.

Why was it useful to show this? Because an argument against killing had been outlined that required weighing the consequences of killing against the consequences of life under an oppressive regime (and possibly with a firm stance against killing).

Constancy

The lucid-dreaming example suggests that although oppression may be “constant” in the sense that a particular kind of action may be repeatedly blocked by force, it may still be inconstant in the crucial sense that it does not shut off all avenues for maintaining the mind in a good, brightened state. Indeed, it must be inconstant in this sense.

Interested parties can imagine more of these avenues (besides lucid dreaming) on their own. Some of these avenues could be explored during the waking hours, and some would even involve the vaunted manipulation of physical objects.

Uninterested parties might do something else. Some people living under oppressive regimes may choose to live in a state of fairly constant despair, but this state is volitional. It has to be sustained. One effective way to sustain it is to count miseries while ignoring the imaginative exercise mentioned above.

(None of this should be understood as an argument in favor of oppressive regimes, or as a general argument against social action aimed at making such regimes less oppressive.)

Two worlds

Good can be done in the dreaming as well as the nondreaming world. Speaking more broadly, good can be done in what we might call the psychological world as well as in the world of physical objects. These worlds interact. There is an asymmetry here. Happenings in the physical world need to get back into the psychological world in order to be recognized as good. But happenings in the psychological world are already right where they need to be in order to be recognized as good. This is one advantage of doing psychological good. 

[Popper’s label for the physical world was “World 1”, and not “World 2”. Even non-Popperians can use it, but to do so without its companion labels seems pointless.]

Forced killing

  On 3/5/2025 at 8:19 AM, chenGOD said:

killing can be coerced. For examples, see the Charles Manson family murders, see child soldiers in sadly many countries, but a prominent example is Dominic Ongwen. In a broader sense, all military action resulting in death is coercion to murder, because soldiers must be taught to fear and hate their enemies.

The statement “killing can't be coerced” is indeed wrong if we understand coercion to occur whenever someone is threatened (say). It was a mistake to use the word “coerced” here, because it seems that widely-understood conditions for coercion are too weak for my purpose here.

Killing can’t be forced. I can’t make you kill any more than I can make you ride a bike, even though I can encourage you (using threats) to ride a bike.

The examples listed above might show that killing can be very strongly encouraged, but they don’t show that killing can be forced. Even if “soldiers must be taught to fear and hate their enemies”, all learning requires intent and choices on the part of the learner. And even someone already (self-)trained to hate and fear has to make a final decision about, say, pulling a trigger or releasing a bomb. That decision is theirs and no one can make it for them.

Killing is preceded by a series of decisions or actions, none of which can be externally forced. One of the commonest members of this series is a false perception that some circumstance actually does force one to kill.