Ukraine Protests

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by He's a Mentalist 1, Feb 21, 2014.

  1. dyne

    dyne Evol Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Messages:
    10,327
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    grenada
    Ratings:
    +438 / -0
    You're the one who keeps misunderstanding I am saying the west has no reason to get involved unless he does something unthinkable. What your saying is exactly what I am saying Putin is just doing what he knows he can get away with and trying to make Russia look strong.

    Your talking about giving surrounding countries nukes to stop Russia from what taking back parts of countries that are heavily pro russian and don't want anything to do with their country? If they don't comply just nuke them? That's absurd.
     
  2. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    EU and US does have a reason to get involved. The current behavior of Russian officials could be a potential danger in the future for other EU countries.
    This is a classic straw man Dyne, you totally misrepresented my initial point. First, I did say that as of now Ukraine doesn't have a right to obtain nuclear weapons. I could name a few reasons why is that.

    However, in terms of jurisprudence when Ukrainian Govt. gave its nukes they "traded" them for safety assurance by UK, USA and Russia as well as money. Now that Russia violated its assurance and UK and USA don't do much to help out Ukraine, one could argue that Ukraine "kind of" in a way does have a right to get them. It's a dilemma.

    Ukraine was and still is a sovereign country, just because some people, who are not in the majority btw, want to separate does not give them that right. Especially when the country they want to join is no better, if not even worse than their homeland.
    http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-dis...t-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

    http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html

    And now let me make it very simple for you, what truly matters in this world dyne is sworded might and not papers, especially when you're dealing with irrational. Russia obviously doesn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine's sovereignty and they have no problem doing what they deem to be just by the means of force. And the only thing that can stop that is force and nothing else.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  3. dyne

    dyne Evol Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Messages:
    10,327
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    grenada
    Ratings:
    +438 / -0
    I am not saying the majority of Ukraine but the parts in which russia wants to reacquire are in majority of being part of russia no?
     
  4. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    I mean this it;
    RU ate Krim, gib nukes back ahaha. Certinaly a valid justfiaction.
    No but you don't trust polls so it's pontless.
     
  5. dyne

    dyne Evol Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Messages:
    10,327
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    grenada
    Ratings:
    +438 / -0
    You're clinging onto a piece of paper and referring to polls that mean absolutely nothing.
     
  6. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Your individual rights are also written on paper, as well as any contract you've ever signed, wouldn't you cling onto them if you had to? Heck, Canada itself is an abstract legal entity and your passport is also a piece of paper and some other materials.

    And on polls issue, I have no obligation to explain you what they are and how they work, I've already went out my of way to post a link, which was too much.

    http://www.rferl.org/content/russia...ttack-on-pro-ukraine-protesters/25366923.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2014
  7. TimidObserver

    TimidObserver ZeroCool

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,064
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Inside the Box
    Ratings:
    +266 / -0
    Someone create a thread about some other current event. Tired of this one. Fuck Ukraine....
     
  8. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    The rights being on a piece of paper is just a way of making them a tangible societal contract. If the piece of paper didn't exist containing the rights, the rights would still exist as it allows for society to function. The paper is meaningless, the inherent need for a cohesive society to foster our individual survival is the real meaning of why such rights exist in the first place.
     
  9. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    The post you replied to was a sarcastic, poorly worded reductio ad absurdum directed at dyne's post and in no way represents my view about Individual rights.

    Societal contract? If you mean Rousseau's nonsense then I'd obviously disagree because it doesn't exist. Contracts can be signed only by a consenting adult who is well aware of contact's contents and requirements as well as obligations. You don't and can not sign it by virtue of being born.

    Ohh shit, I really shouldn't go into in depth philosophical discussion with you.
     
  10. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    By your logic every person must be a lawyer in order to sign a contract. Most people aren't aware of what they are signing into, rather they have some vague notion of what they are signing. A vague awareness isn't the same as knowing.

    Being born into societal customs where the rights are naturally given is a must. No contract is needed, it is the purpose of a rational society. An irrational society cannot even comprehend rights in the first place. By being human we have reason, which is what separates us from the common, lower animal, and by being capable of reason we have rights to other humans (also termed, duties).

    A piece of paper establishing that is just a tangible aspect of establishing what is already known. A person without reason is not human.
     
  11. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Nonsense. I'm not a lawyer and I know what I sign after I read it. If I decide not to read it it's my fault. Nevertheless, the signature never appears on the contract by the virtue of being alive. If it does it's not a contract but a sham.

    Who are the parties to contract? How and what is offered/accepted by each? (In general terms) What is the intended duration? What is the legally binding format or formalities? Is there a provision for termination?
    Then why did you speak of it? Regardless of customs you have only one real "right" and that is right to life which can also be described as right to action, IE right to pursue your values. Moreover, rights are abstract ideas and moral guides which are designed to govern a society, and nothing more. Anyways, the whole customs thing you utter is nonsense.
    Yes, and because of that we do need the proper understanding of correct rights and their enforcement in order to flourish. The rights are not the same as social contract however. As a matter of fact, social contract violates your rights. Most, if not all, Social Contract theories consist of obligations which go beyond not harming each other.
    Again, that is nonsense. Contracts contain valuable information, reason is a tool which allows men to comprehend that information. In no way can you "already know" what's in the contract when you see it for the first time and have no prior knowledge about it. Stop typing nonsense.



    And this;

    Are especially troubling, you've manged to contradict yourself. You're one messed up Beefheart, Mentalist.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
  12. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    There was no contradiction, just a misinterpretation on your part. I was arguing a specific point which was the quoted, the other arguments after are different. Often times, even if a person reads a legal contract, they aren't fully aware of what it all means. This is common. For more information, find:

    The Understandability of Legal Documents: Are They Adequate?

    A paper concerning this very subject.

    In terms of society, we don't sign a societal contract. That is just another way of saying that the basic laws of the land are followed simply because of a person's capability of reason. The reason is what we follow and what the laws are based around. We know them naturally, or at least those capable of reason know it.

    When I was a kid, I was never told that stealing was wrong, but I could naturally discern that it wasn't right to take something not my own or from my own work. The main reasoning behind this thought I had was that it was unfair. How could I know it was wrong without being taught? Evolutionary psychology holds the answer...

    http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/04/22/chimpanzees-prefer-fair-play-o/

    As for social contracts being harming. Great! Now be ample with your explanation of those specifically harming a society. I am referencing the basic reasons surrounding fairness.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
  13. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Ha, no no, It's just your points are self contradictory.
    I'm not going to read that paper, I'm lazy like that. Besides, I myself never had a problem with comprehending contracts. Arguing that since some people can comprehend only plain language won't help you to score any points here.

    I'm not a chimpanzee and that article is irrelevant in this discussion. We don't discuss theft here but social contract.

    I'm not going to do it, you haven't even defined social contract and how one signs it or what it contains even though I asked you. Now that I think of it I should stop talking you at all. It's of no benefit to me.
     
  14. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    Social contract is, as said before, another way of saying you have reason and follow reason in terms of a social setting. For instance, take someone who is a baker and a foreign man enters his shop. Now the foreign man has no idea that the baker has a sale going on for some of his goods. The baker, because of him having reason and duty bound to those reasons, is obligated to tell the foreign man that he need not pay a price higher for the goods on sale. The baker can knowingly neglect to tell the foreign man that there is a sale. However, that would not follow fairness, and thus would not follow the adherence to reason.

    The social contract is another way of saying one has reason and lives in a society but is also duty bound to follow that reason. The baker is duty bound by reason to tell the foreign man that a sale is occurring and because of that, not allow the foreign man to pay more than is required of the sale.

    As for your reading ability, you cannot operate in that mindset. All people capable of reason, also operate on some mode of logic. Logic would compel someone to not judge everyone else according to one's-self and one's own ability, rather look much more deeply than one's own world-view. This is the central point of logic and philosophy, to not assume what the object is in front of you, rather understand it.

    As for the article, it is more evolutionary anthropology. It isn't a means of saying you are a chimpanzee, but studying chimpanzee's is a gateway into knowing more about our own evolution and why operate in certain ways. Chimpanzees are our closest cousin so it would make sense for them to operate on some level akin to that of a human. What I linked you to should be an interesting read if you choose to read it.
     
  15. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Depends on bakery. The baker may be obligated to present the price in form of a tag bound by real contract. Or he may not. It's contextual, many merchants in many countries haggle.

    tldr it's contextual, you're posting annoying crap.

    Reason doesn't bind anyone, reason is a tool of cognition which consists of objectivity, rationality, individuality, universality and practicality. All to it. Drop your Kantian duty nonsense you moron.

    Any properly functioning average human being is capable of comprehending written language if he desires to do so. There is a choice to think or not to.

    As well as Bonobo who are closely related to Chimpanzee's but behave differently.. So? Chimpanzee can also be extremely violent, far more than Humans. And regardless of "operating on certain level" doesn't mean I should relate to any animal, or man for that matter that is irrational and beneath me in all respects. Funny how you professed to have respect for Nietzsche in the past and then brought up the "laughing stock".

    Check out No Treason by Lysander Spooner, it might help your messed up troll mind. You suck Beefheart, and you suck the mostest hardestest lol
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
  16. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    The context is irrelevant to my discussion. I am merely discussing rationality or reason.

    As for reason being a tool. Reason and cognition are one in the same, if you have one, you certainly have the other. You can read any of the literature surrounding cognition, but my personal suggestion would be, "The Synaptic Self" by Joseph LeDoux. Or, if you do not feel like buying that book (I would suggest you do), you can use the website below which has a lot of peer reviewed studies in cognition.

    http://www.jneurosci.org

    I am not following Kant per se, what I am doing is following reason. Sure Kant put the whole thing in context and made more headway into the subject, but by no means is Kant the one to create the act of one following reason and being a rational being. Before Kant people weren't irrational. Kant just made what rationality and morality was, more apparent. But even his line of thought can be traced right back to Plato, and to some degree Aristotle. However, this isn't a discussion of Kant.

    Relating to another is never irrational. It is how we have survived so long. Check out any, and most of evolutionary biology, and anthropology. Relating is another mode altruism, the act of self-sacrifice for the species.

    As for Spooner, I read a bit of his work on wikipedia, and from what I read it seems alright so I'll check it out later today as a part of my reading time. But from what I did read, I do agree with it. However, I fail to see how that is against what I am saying (again, I haven't read the whole thing).
     
  17. Deimos

    Deimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    14,098
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Space
    Ratings:
    +589 / -0
    have you aspies stopped cuddling one another?

    dozens of people died recently after pro-ukrainian protesters burned down the building where pro-russian protesters were barricaded.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27274028

    This was the kind of backlash Russia was waiting for. Now they can say the native russians are being oppressed and move in. gj kiev.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-war-with-pro-Russia-rebels-states-Kiev.html

    FBI, CIA & co are on the ground in Ukraine 'helping' out Kiev.

    http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/...n-cia-und-fbi-beraten-kiew-35807724.bild.html

    we shouldve went there went i told you. now it's too late. :(
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
  18. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Context is always relevant, especially in a discussion. You claiming otherwise raises the red flag. You were discussing Social contract and as I pointed out earlier reason doesn't equal social contract. You ignored it.
    They are not. I've already told you what reason consists of.


    This is the best explanation of those events I could find in English; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ffers-bloodiest-day-since-the-revolution.html

    Here is Russian article which explains what happened in detail; http://napaki.livejournal.com/100072.html

    Little update for certain someone;
    2:00, the fire starts on 3rd floor and the window is not broken.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AMjLBIliw&feature=youtu.be
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
  19. He's a Mentalist 1

    He's a Mentalist 1 Patriot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16 / -8
    The context is irrelevant in addressing my definition of what a social contract is.

    Reason is being able to think (i.e., cognition), and perform tasks or think in an orderly manner that follows a logical route. Individuality stemming from reason is another way of saying one is aware, one is conscious, or, one has cognition. This cognition is based on some of the objectivity which can only be known through logic or reason. Cognition hinges on one's ability to reason effectively, if one cannot reason effectively and more accurately, their logic becomes skewered, thus any moment of an actual "self" becomes many somethings, many elses, and never one.

    I guess now it's convenient for Putin to enter the rest of Ukraine to protect the Russian minority.
     
  20. greg770

    greg770 Nomene tengo

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ratings:
    +294 / -3
    Last edited: May 6, 2014

Share This Page