jasory @ jasory @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

2 yr. ago

They sure will.

So your argument goes like this

1. A total moron is a mentally handicapped person
2. I am correct in calling you a total moron
3. If 1 AND 2 is true, then I am insulting a mentally handicapped person

Conclusions

1. People will not take me seriously making me irrational
2. If premise 2 is not true, then I made a false statement

Here's where it fails, and I already warned you about this, calling someone "a total moron" is not a claim of mental handicap and hasn't been for 60+ years it is a long deprecated medical term that is exclusively used as an insult towards the mentally competent.

So premise one is actually false, everyone recognizes that premise 1 is false therefore premise 3 is also false. And neither of the conclusions you are trying to assert are correct.

"with being so much smarter than me"

Clearly.

You can be mean to mentally handicapped people and still be correct.

Now you're not actually mentally handicapped and it's obvious, you just have moronic opinions and argumentation. So people would not be perceiving someone being mean to a mentally handicapped person.

I know what game you're trying to play, but you're messing it up and it just looks like your reinforcing your own admissions.

Ukraine also engages in a fair amount of propaganda (so much so that US and UK intelligence regularly contradict them), so asking for evidence isn't too unreasonable.

So you are admitting to being mentally handicapped?

Why do you try to drum up your stupidity for sympathy?

You're clearly not mentally handicapped, you're just a lazy mediocre person who sources their opinions from memes.

But next time I run into you you bet I'm going to be asking why a self-aware "mentally handicapped" person, is still repeating tropes that they know are wrong.

You can do both? If you contract someone to provide you with a car, and they go out and steal a car and give it to you. You didn't actually commit that crime, because the contract wasn't to commit a crime it was to provide you with legally permitted service.

Charter flights are usually handled differently than public flights to begin with, because the clientele (usually groups of related people) and legal contracts are different.

No, I make substantial criticisms and add some insults because I find it funny.

What it achieves is informing people and entertaining me.

Totally dude, would you like to flex your IR degree and show the world that this statement is correct?

You realise these discussions are public right?

I don't write to address an audience of one, it's to publicly refute vapid nonsense.

In fact I immediately block people who DM because if you don't want a discussion public to convince other people, I'm not going to waste my time convincing a single person.

Never talked to a shroom-head before?

"there is no other precedent for supporting the life of another that can't be transferred to another"

Yes, there is. Even a legal precedent, it's called abandonment, you cannot legally abandon a dependent (especially if it leads to imminent death) without transferring actual custody to another responsible party (e.g not a murderer).

If you are in a circumstance where you cannot transfer the custody to another party, you cannot leave the dependent to die.

The rest of your statement is irrelevant garbage, but I think it's important to refute that point.

That's mostly just a bunch of different people using different definitions of "natural rights".

Many people seem to think that natural rights are ones granted by nature, but in actual philosophy nobody cares about this. Clearly wild animals or inanimate objects don't grant humans rights, it's what basis humans consider to be the source of a right. A natural right would be a right granted to you by another human based on the nature of your existence. It is a special consideration towards you on the basis that you are a human.

And the "divine right of kings" origin story is ridiculous, the concept of natural rights was not invented to justify monarchy or God.

Well no. The problem with all the comments here is that they all presuppose that whatever the commenter likes is a human right.

Someone against abortion would not say "I oppose human rights" they would say "abortion is not a human right" and more than likely "abortion violates human rights".

"Since human rights are international agreements"

No they're not. Not in philosophy and not even in international law.

"is totally acceptable and a fine course of action"

Motte-and-Bailey fallacy.

The argument is not that it is okay to invade countries based on historical claims, it's not. It's that we have no basis for thinking that Russia's motivation for invading Ukraine and Georgia applies to invading all other countries of the world, which is the argument you made and repeated here again.

You realise that most invasions in the world are ignored by the global community? They mostly happen in Africa. So you trying to generalize it from Russia to all aggressor states in the world, is also false. Most invasions do not receive major international response, so why would aggressor states look at a lack of response to the invasion of Ukraine for inspiration and not say the Second Congo War?

"Gosh I was so silly"

"Brain-dead" is the term I would use.

"I should pay more attention to geopolitics"

And English class, and elementary logic.

No. The policies that lead to higher quality of life in Russia would probably not lead to lower quality of life in Ukraine.

In other words we have no reason to believe that aligning with Russia would have resulted in worse outcomes than Ukraine already had. The reason they aligned with the West was primarily to join the EU, which due to corruption and markets they weren't even eligible to join (and still aren't).

This resulted in conflict with Russia and the current circumstances which are far worse than they started with and are essentially irrecoverable at this point (certainly population wise).

In summary it was Ukraine's pursuit of an idealised goal that resulted in negative outcomes. And you are asserting that this is actually a good thing.

Remember when you admitted to me that you were a total moron? Yeah. Your evaluation of every circumstance is super juvenile.

Basically. The smart thing for Hussein was to step down. Even if the US wasn't justified in invading, Hussein was an utter moron and made the situation far worse.

For some reason there is this assumption that "national sovereignty" is morally relevant. It's not states are not subject to moral harm, you have to show that losing national sovereignty results in worse outcomes for the population.

Ukraine would almost certainly be in a better position if they remained Russia-aligned or even joined them. By virtually every metric the Ukrainian population had worse standard of living than Russia, lower birth rates, higher death rates. That was before the war started in 2014, there situation is even worse now. Millions of people fled, and they aren't coming back, Ukraine has a very bleak future even if they do win all their territory. And they still don't have any guarantee of joining the EU or NATO (primarily due to corruption and territorial dispute issues).

Arguing that by conceding some territory you concede all territory (and eventually the world), is literally just the slippery slope fallacy. We have zero basis for thinking that Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine wasn't simply an attempt at re-aligning former Russian (and later Soviet) territory. This motivation does not exist for any other territory, and didn't even exist when Ukraine was Russia aligned, and does not exist in the CSTO.

For some weird ass reason¹ the only two positions on this are "Ukraine are NAzis", or "Russia is trying to conquer the world therefore Ukraine must fight to the death for every m²" and zero evaluation of geopolitics is ever performed.

1. The reason is people are morons, not actually weird unfortunately.

"The negotiations start with them getting out"

Ideally yes... pragmatically no. Ukraine lost how many troops in the 2023 counteroffensive and got essentially nowhere? If Ukraine's goal is to reclaim all of it's territory, it's going to be a pyrrhic victory. It will cost more than the territory is actually worth, the war and conscription policy have already demographically ruined Ukraine (e.g all the young people they need fled the country).

"No sane person would say 'let them keep a room'"

Because they have the ability to remove that person. Ukraine does not, and it's corruption and underperformance in the battlefield suggests that it may never no matter how many weapons the West gives them or conscripts they send to the trenches.

You are arguing for a perfect victory at all costs. The real world doesn't work like this, and it would be deeply immoral if it did.