martins name

@MAHAVATAR_-_BABAJI I keep it there with my fingers. Also more stretching.

I've long seen truth in both the standard Western perspective and Meirshimer's realpolitik perspective on the war. Finally, I've managed to integrate the best parts of both of them. Personally, I'm a Swede. First, I affirm the standard Western perspective on justice. Nato doesn't threaten Russia's borders as Russia has nukes and can't be invaded. Nato does however threaten Russia's ability to dominate its neighbors, which is what this conflict is all about. Domination is immoral and unjust, therefore it'd desirable for all nations to have the right to self-determine. Second, I affirm a realpolitik strategy. In hindsight, letting Ukraine get too close to the West was, as Mearsheimer predicted a decade ago, inevitably going to lead to a Russian invasion. Even if Ukraine wins the inevitable war, Ukrainian cultural and economic independence isn't worth the death toll and economic destruction that it costs. Instead, we should have kept Ukraine at arm's length to prevent the war. Even if the war is completely unjust and immoral on Russia's part, it doesn't change the cost of the war. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis, and the cost outweighed the benefit. Think of it like Russia is a thug in a dark ally. Eventually, we would like all dark alleys to be safe, but until then, don't walk into one. Even if robbery is immoral by the thug, don't put yourself in that situation. Before the war started there were 3 options: 1. No war and Ukraine remains culturally dominated by Russia. 2. War and Ukraine wins. 3. War and Russia wins. The first alternative is no longer available. Now we are left with the second-best option, a Ukrainian victory. This should be accomplished in order to affirm a European order of justice, where aggression is unacceptable. It's dumb that we have taken this fight, but now that we have, it's worth it to win.

Europe, by us standing in solidarity with other European nations and affirming the rule that you don't get to carve up Europe with military might. Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right. I doubt it's Biden's intention to weaken Europe, rather it's a necessary cost. I don't think killing opposition leaders is necessary to that end. Rather, it's a barbaric way to stay in power. It's not, they support the defense of Ukraine. It's solidarity between European nations. Doing the right thing and standing up to tyrants. I'll watch the doc tomorrow tnx for the recommend. Good night.

Rather shut it off but it doesn't matter. It shouldn't be used. Don't fund the enemy. Economic warfare. I didn't say or mean that. I got confused and thought I might have missed a referendum. Russian interference was the main issue. Just watch this. Yes, almost as corrupt as Russia, but not quite. I don't know about the pressure you are talking of but he is a murderer who assassinates his political opponents. That's just facts. Also he constantly interfere in western elections with his troll farms and invades countries. Putin is a clear antagonist. Telling the truth about it is hardly escalatory. Admittedly I don't know how much America has meddeled in Ukrainian politics. Sources I trust say it's way overblown but idk. Do you have sources or any good yt vids preferably I can check out? Europeans are greatful for America's help in the conflict. I haven't heard any anti American sentiment on this conflict from Europeans.

It was America, Biden said they would do it and did it. Also, there is good investigative reporting from Seymour Hersh further supporting the claim. America shouldn't have the power to do this with impunity but, speaking as a European who was affected by it, I'm glad they did. Should have been done by the Germans themselves. 6000 nuclear warheads say otherwise. They tried to invade Kyiv at the start of the war. It just didn't work. That's not taking a chunk out of a country. There was no Russian option. There were options for independence, to become an in-between for Russia and Ukraine. An option for people to have dual citizenship. They wanted independence, not to be ruled by Russia. 1991 was the year when Ukraine voted to become an independent country with popular support in every region of the country including Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk. Maybe you are referring to 2014? "Independent observers reported many irregularities and the results of the separatist referendums were not officially recognized by any government, including those of Ukraine, the United States, and the countries of the European Union." -Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums Plus this happened while Russia supplied weapons to separatists and ran a disinformation campaign in the region. Referendums after such interference should not be legitimate even if the vote counting wasn't dubious. This would be justice if America breaks international law and aggresses against Mexico. If you get robbed it's a robbery not a dispute over the ownership of your wallet. The Yankees are animals I agree with that, but so is Russia. In this case, I think America is right in supporting Ukraine like a broken clock is right twice a day. I want a strong and independent Europe that works with both powers to the extent that it's healthy. Getting free military defense in the form of NATO is beneficial for Europe and much appreciated. I think you are gravely overestimating the extent to which America is pulling Ukraine's strings. It's an independent nation that stood up for its own freedom when everyone else including America thought they would roll over. Ukraine wanted to join the West and wasn't forced to. Even tho I think the request should have been denied for the reason I explained in the post. From the many inaccuracies in what you have written, I question the quality of your information sources.

This is an observation about an unhealthy dynamic in Sweden's asylum immigration. One example of how green moralizes in place of doing good systems thinking. There are many reasons why our immigration policy has been dumb but I've never heard anyone articulate this dynamic: When you save someone from drowning you are supposed to do so with an extended arm, meaning an object between you and other. This is done so that the other doesn't pull you down under the water with them and because it's easier to help when you are safe yourself. In charity immigration, it's always the rich that have enough of their needs met to care about others that want immigration. Meanwhile it's the poor in the country that live with the immigrants and suffer the negative effects of immigration. Effectively the rich use the poor as an extended arm in helping the immigrants. Apart from this being unfair, it makes the system unresponsive to when the immigration becomes too much, as the poor will say that it's too much but will be dismissed as just less moral than the rich. Also the poor has less influence than the rich, further contributing to the poor's needs being underrepresented. Once the rich feel that the immigration is too much the poor are already radicalized. A population has a level of caritabiliy mostly based on how much its needs are met. If pushed over that level there will be a backlash. In the scenario I'm describing the population overshoots its natural caritabiliy and the inevitable backlash creates turbulence. In the end you end up at the systems natural level of charitably, but the society has taken a destructive rollercoaster ride of unsmooth changes.

@An young being The world would never be the same

damn i made the best post in the world

This perfectly describes regular LSD experiences to me. If he has heard a proper explanation of enlightenment I think it would be from a buddist source.

@Carl-Richard Okey, he knows the word and probably has heard a description. I think he has filtered it so hard through his bullshit that effectively has very little idea what it is. And I don't think he understands it well enough to distinguish enlightenment experiences from other mystical experiences. I think if he did we would see him be more curious about it and maybe have a mystic on his podcast, which he hasn't. I think if you ask him what enlightenment is he would answer that it's similar to Christianity's heaven which he thinks is the highest aesthetic ideal. Heaven is a meaning. He doesn't understand the metaphysics of heaven.

@Carl-Richard There are millions of psychedelic-infused mystical experiences to be had. I see no proof that he has had an enlightenment experience rather than any of the other millions of experiences. He thinks Buddhist enlightenment is about virtuous living without attachments. He thinks enlightenment is a version of the common Christian conception of Christ's saintly living.

If you are in the US say "I think that the American left and right both make some good point. As a voter, the question is: what points are the most important? That's why I want to ask you, what do you think is the list of the most important issues in American politics?" The right answer is of course: wealth inequity. The bottom 50% of households have only 2.6% of the wealth in America. Over 400,000 Americans work two full-time jobs. no labor power, due to outsourcing, not enough union protections, and no socialized higher education that could serve as an alternative to poor working conditions. Government corruption. bribes are called super PACs. The defense industry, big pharma and medical insurance have bought political power to set themselves up as parasites on society. Lack of democracy. American politicians are owned by corporations. The two-party duopoly has a chokehold on our political system. This makes 3rd parties not viable and forces unholy alliances between Trumpists, libertarians and Christian conservatives, also between corporate centrist democrats and progressives. JP will list some conservative points, some of which may be valid, but none of them will be the biggest issues. This is the core of the problem with JP's politics. This should be brought to his awareness. This is a question he should grapple with.

Do listen. How you interpret them is the question.

Chat GPT and other ai are made with random mutations so it seems to work.

Damn, I must be retarded?

Consciousness is like a computer screen and this universe is like a first-person 3d game. When you were first born all there were were appearances on that screen. At some point, you were told that this is because of a material world outside of the screen. You've never experienced this material world, will never be able to, and will never be able to prove its existence, but you've taken its existence on faith. My worldview doesn't require faith. When I see a tree in a game on a computer screen I don't think there is some world behind the computer screen. I do have a model of a 3D world that lets me predict the appearance of the screen. I know this is just a model. There is the screen. Then there are appearances on the screen. Then I have a model of how these appearances work. That's all. It has the same predictive power as the materialist paradigm, but my worldview doesn't require faith.

Most ideas and sets of ideas have a combination of good and bad in them. Put the cherry in your mouth, meaning you fully consider the idea. Feel that it has a positive part and a negative part. Separate the two. Spit out the bad part. Ingest the good part and digest it. This is an expression I think of almost daily.

Just bring your 5meo

I'm having a joker moment rn fr

Maybe it's just for itself.

Destiny and his ilk have a vision of justice and it's that nations should be able to determine their own alliances. Military intervention to stop it is unjust. Murder, theft, rape and subjugation is wrong and unjust. I do agree with Mearsheimer that getting into the war was a strategic mistake. We should have let Russia dominate Ukraine knowing the the disaster that would happen if we didn't. But that doesn't make the war just. Therefore, now that we are in it, we should enforce that this kind of behavior is unacceptable in Europe. No war would have been the best outcome if we could change the past. A Russian win is the worst outcome. A Ukrainian win is the second-worst outcome. No war is no longer an option, so we should go with the second-worst option. Speaking as a Swede.

What I find problematic about Mearsheimer is that he has no vision of justice

Mustache guy is close-minded. I don't like him.

@something_else Interesting. Thanks for info.

He must have made ridiculous amounts from hustlers uni and other courses.