Lord Ratner

That's incorrect. Nearly all cryptocurrencies are traded peer-to-peer as their native behavior. The exchanges are simply the easiest way to connect buyers and sellers.

I think HIMARS coupled with American intelligence providing the targeting coordinates has been far more decisive than the grenade-laden drones.

I only have one question for you... What's does this say?

Huh? You're a bot, right? Not even General Chang was this good 😂🤣

I might be disconnected from your reality, but I don't think that's the one the rest of us live in. You don't think devastating effects are being brought upon Russia? Because the Russian media sure would disagree. They obviously have a very different opinion as to why those effects are being brought upon them. This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. It is perfectly rational to disagree with our support of the Ukrainians. But denying basic realities because they don't support your position just wastes time. Next, everyone I know who's acted as a good Samaritan against a violent attacker has gotten a handshake and a pat on the ass from the cops. While the stories of homeowners being charged for shooting a burglar are viral on the internet, they're not representative of what happens in the real world, which again, I'm not sure you are a member of. And some of the biggest self-defense cases have ruled in favor of the defendant. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse to name a couple. Maybe you live somewhere like California? It's been a long time since I lived there, so I suppose it's entirely possible the insanity there has escalated to the point Californians don't remember how the rest of the country operates. And finally, do I need to explain how analogies work? 😂🤣

Close, except for under this scenario. Mexico/La Raza would be Russia annexing California, and the immoral party. I agree though, it is a much better analogy. Here we completely agree, though the situation is still quite complicated. This is the only argument I've seen so far that justifies Russia's actions. Informed debaters like you and flea have made it, but it is not a mainstream argument. You also get to the question of whether or not the world going back on a promise of territorial alignment can justify the widespread slaughter of civilians. I suspect that it cannot. But it at least adds an element of justification. Let's also not forget that Ukraine did not join NATO. Maybe it would have, but that was a long way out. You can't preemptively respond to a violation of an agreement. It seems much more likely to me that this was merely used as a pretext for something Vladimir Putin had wanted and planned for a long time. This started in 2014, not 2022. Yup, this is pretty classical post-modernist. And wrong. First, while we have most certainly interfered in the conflicts and politics of other nations, we have not sought to expand our physical empire. That makes us rare amongst modern powers. Seizing the land of another nation is quite clearly different than meddling. And slaughtering civilians by the tens of thousands in pursuit of military, political, or economic goals is also clearly different. To compare the two morally implies no sense of morality at all. And even if we have the same moral past as Russia, that still doesn't affect the moral implications of today's conflict. You cite examples of both countries being immoral then imply that somehow obviates the possibility of judging this conflict. But how can you judge the previous conflicts (by both Russia and the US) as immoral, then be unable to judge present conflicts? So more to the point: Let's ignore the hypotheticals, because we don't need them. We have a very clearly defined situation now that you are clearly educated on. Is Russia acting morally or immorally? Do they have the right to do what they are doing, or not? Does Russia have a legitimate claim to Ukraine (they tried taking Kiev), and is a military attack justified in pursuing that claim? That doesn't even touch the war crimes. Just the military decision to take Ukraine and (try to) destroy the Ukrainian military in doing so. The historical perspective is useful for judging the present situation, because experience and comparison are important. But stopping short of making the actual judgment negates the entire exercise. I suspect the reason so many of the don't-interfere-in-this-conflict crowd are unwilling to finish the analysis is they don't want to, either consciously or unconsciously, say that an evil is happening but they are willing to let it happen. It's a bad look, even if/when it's the correct call. But it also makes the debate difficult to the point of satire. Because when the question of morality inevitably comes up and is danced around, instead of talking about the prudence of acting or not acting against evil, we end up talking about whether or not the situation is evil at all, when it is clearly so.

I'm not entirely following here. Reductionism is useful in theoretical conversation, but it can't be confused for a framework for viewing the real world. There are no relevant hypotheticals, the real world has already created the scenario. Is Russia being evil in their actions? Is Ukraine to blame for the invasion? Who is right and who is wrong in this conflict? The world is not black and white, but the many shades of gray do fall on a spectrum that are either more black or more white. Arguing that Ukraine has done something wrong, and therefore a moral judgment cannot be weighed against Russia, is the geopolitical version of saying well she shouldn't have cheated on him if she didn't want to be beaten to death. It really is amazing to me how many people are using other conflicts as some sort of basis for minimizing the obvious moral dilemmas we face in Ukraine. Past acts do not impact the moral characteristics of present conflicts. Right and wrong are not relative. To argue otherwise is too close to post-modernism, which is thoroughly deviod of intellectual substance. It is also remarkable to me that conservatives are now using the same twisted logic that progressives have used for the past decade or two. Well the United States had slaves, so who are we to judge? It's nonsense. Did the chauvinistic kleptocracy deserve to be invaded or not? A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying fucks if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction. Now, I would not say that the moral nature of international activity binds us to any course, but the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican party seems hell bent on disputing the moral nature of this particular war, rather than just the appropriate national response, and I find that to be almost laughably obtuse.

Listen to Dan Crenshaw's latest podcast for a fascinating (and horrifying) look at the war from an American operator who joined the Ukrainians. Reminds me of much earlier in the thread when some of us were simply content to spend a few billion fighting evil. A much better use of my tax dollars than keeping old fat people alive until they're 100, bailing out the banking mafia, funding the university indoctrination apparatus, attacking the basis for advanced civilization (energy production), or funding virus research that fist-fucked the global economy for a few years. It's also lost on some of the isolationists that we don't need some sort of additional justification to "meddle" in this war. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Whatever reasons we decide to involve ourselves, our "right" to interfere was granted when an innocent ally was attacked and called for help. If you see someone being mugged, and you beat the shit out of the mugger, no one cares why you did it. Maybe you saw evil and felt compelled to act. Maybe you have a hero complex. Maybe you just wanted to feel someone's life end in your hands. Doesn't matter; motive is only important when you're doing the wrong thing. There are all sorts of reasons we might not participate. The budget is one. But I hate hearing people start dancing around the relativist cry of what right do we have to decide what happens there? We have every right.

Don't forget the example it sets for China. While I'm skeptical the current batch of global leaders are capable of such forward-thinking policy, the Ukraine-Russia-West dynamic is very similar to (while smaller than) the Taiwan-China-West dynamic. I have no doubt China is paying close attention.

Haha, and I usually fail. You shouldn't have much trouble relating😂🤣

This is like Jews who only go to synagogue a couple times a year, but take every opportunity to call themselves Jewish while they advocate for and support political stances that are in direct opposition to the Jewish faith. Being raised both Catholic and Jewish, I've seen many of both. And for clarity, I am firmly atheist. Since I don't believe in any of the sanctity or spiritually of the religion, perhaps I have an easier time identifying religious vs non-religious people. You are religious if you follow the teachings of your religion. You are not if you don't. You can love the idea of airplanes, respect the history of airplanes, marvel at the complex engineering of airplanes, and even spend a lot of time hanging out at FBOs, airshows, and in airplanes. But if you don't fly them, you're not a pilot, regardless of whether you believe yourself to be one. One of the most vital elements of religion is the formation of a clear and definable identity that one can use to guide their life such that they can successfully adapt to living in a given society, and advance that society through their participation. Each religion has different prescriptions for doing so, but this new-age nonsense of I don't have to do anything but identify as the religion in order to be a part of it is strangely reminiscent of the new and obnoxious dogma regarding gender.

Fair hit on the periodic table, but that just means my point is correct, my detail wasn't. I'll own that slip. It also wasn't anything more than a small example to refute your very weak (or very poorly made) point that international supply chain security are economic factors that aren't worthy of killing people over. Usually I try not to come off as rude on the internet, since the internet biases us towards that type of behavior. But now you're playing the victim, and it's boring and disingenuous. I called you out on a very (very) obvious straw man, and now you're doubling down, which which is a type of internet debate I have less time for. So when you can read someone's opinion without mischaracterizing it to buttress your own (or weaken theirs), maybe we can have that talk. Otherwise it's the same pointless team-ism that's crushing the national dialog in all parts of life, and I get enough of that in the real world. No thanks

Neat. Next time let's have the conversation people are actually having, like that, instead of using straw men to... Honestly I have no idea why you feel the need. We can get into your hyper simplistic view of international trade tomorrow, but we did create a supply chain, in Taiwan. And Ukraine, actually. Now other nations seek to threaten that. And with the blessing of Taiwan and Ukraine, we abso-fucking-lutely are entitled to blow up some enemies to protect those supply chains, should they be attacked. Doesn't mean we should, we have to balance other interests, but we certainly are entitled to the decision. When you say "violate sovereignty" I have to imagine you mean the idea of attacking China for semiconductors that are produced in China? Another straw man.

The above is not in the same universe as: If you are arguing that only existential threats merit intervention, then we can have that conversation. But you're not, just like I'm not arguing we are on the brink of extinction. "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making." There are plenty of economic reasons I'd consider justification for blowing up our enemies. We can use any threats to our access to advanced semiconductors as one example. He doesn't need your help making bad arguments.

Straw man

Don't forget semiconductors. Ukraine produces a ton of helium.

What do you consider a current international threat to the USA? Something that, if not addressed, will result in a weaker America.

Both can be true (and are).

100% a sign of dementia. It's sad, but also a bit horrifying. I guess it didn't end horribly when Regan was in office, so I doubt it will this time either.

I love when people try to redefine Catholicism in a way that suits their political beliefs. The Catholic Church is structured in a very clear manner, and the accepted views of the church are equally clear. You either believe them or you don't, but you don't get to pretend that you're part of the club if you're not willing to abide by the Constitution and bylaws. It's one thing to claim to be Christian when you don't have mainstream Christian beliefs. But Catholicism is a very specific type of Christianity

We had a crew in the tanker fail to pressurize. The maintainers in the back all passed out, pissed themselves, etc. One even busted his head. The boom had to drag one up front to get him on oxygen. When they finally pressurized the AC decided to fly another 6 hours, at altitude, to the Died. When people fuck up, they tend to convince themselves that completing the mission will somehow minimize the reality of the fuck up, even if it actually makes it worse.

Isn't that how all opinions work here? I guess I'm new to the internet. I don't think we have a single woman here who has opined on abortion. Definitely no Ukrainians or Russians. Not a single climate scientist or immunologist to be seen. If I was unclear that I am not a Delta pilot, my bad. If your point is that only a Delta pilot could have a beyond "noted" opinion, then I am excited to hear how the Delta pilots managed to exist in a different macroeconomic environment than the rest of us at American, United, Southwest, etc. I will reiterate. Your pilot group (are you Delta?) are fools if they pass on this TA in this macro environment. Especially in light of what the mediator said before Bastian & co. walked into the room. And since I work with a pilot group full of fools, I can have an opinion on that too 🤣😂

Does JFK have the auto red lights for takeoff and crossings? Break break The Delta TA is a game changer, and they would be absolute fools to vote it down. DAL management has clearly decided that predictability for this summer is more valuable than money right now. Voting it down will intentionally remove the primary leverage point that got the huge gains in the first place. There is also rumor that the mediator made it clear in no uncertain terms that failure to recognize (and pass) the "generous" offer would not be viewed favorably when deciding how to meditate any prolonged negotiations.

We knew that COVID targeted fat old people from what, January 2020? We knew it didn't affect kids either by the time we went into lockdown in March. We knew it spreads almost entirely indoors by April, because I remember the Florida beach controversy. Nearly everything we "learned" about COVID after the summer of 2020 involved an "expert" prediction that proved inaccurate.

You and I have agreed and disagreed on a lot, and I commended your ability to change your mind. But this part gets to the crux of the issue, and why I think your assessment is so wrong. The ability to make decisions in an environment of incomplete information is quite literally definitive of intelligence and leadership. There's a whole lot of people right now throwing their hands up in the air and saying " well we just didn't know," but that's bullshit. Part of the job is not knowing, and being able to accurately assess and communicate that lack of knowledge, and recognize that without perfect information, your ability to compel others should be equally limited. This is foundational stuff to the way our government was designed and is supposed to work. The "experts" lied. Flat out. I'm including using intentionally misleading language. There are plenty of examples in this thread. But worse than lying about things they knew (to cover their asses), they lied about what they didn't know. They did so because they knew we-the-people wouldn't have done what they commanded if it was based on a hunch. But it was, and unfortunately (as any real scientist would admit) when you act on a hunch, you'll be wrong more often than not. So the point isn't "we would have done things differently if we had better information." The point is "will we do things differently the next time we have a crisis with little available information?" Based on the experts skittering like cockroaches into the shadows to avoid responsibility, and a whole bunch of well-meaning Americans seeking to look the other way because their "team" was the one that got it so incredibly wrong, I'm not sure we've learned much at all. Maybe when the 2018-2019 babies hit their teenage years, and we see the devastation wrought by depriving them of the irreplaceable socialization training needed between the ages of 2-4, we will have that conversation. But saying "hey, you didn't know anything either, we were all in the dark" doesn't cut it. How you act in the dark is what matters... (giggity). Again, not directed specifically at you, but I think you're missing the point. It's not that they were wrong, it's what they forced us to do while they were (knowingly) wrong.