What the world needs now is peace: all wars must stop

[Estro Felino]

Make a thread about it and discuss it there instead of trying to derail your own thread even more.

It is on topic.
That book explains why the desire for peace is suppressed: it is suppressed by homologation and "herd logic".
The herd doesn't seek peace. Read it.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting.
But you didn't say your take on calling for whataboutism during a debate.

In my country such a word doesn't even exist. Doublestandardism is used 24/7, au contraire. Especially in politics.

The most grotesque (and disgusting) case was from a celebrity that in a TV show called two colleagues making up in the studio "unprofessional and cheeky", whereas paparazzi showed pics of him doing the exact same thing in another studio.

So yes...I believe hypocrites invented whataboutism.

I think it all just depends on the context of a given discussion, but sometimes, when debating, there are those who use various tactics to try to angle for position.

Of course, it could be an indicator that there may be a miscommunication or misunderstanding as to what the topic actually is. It may not be as shady as some people try to make it out to be.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it all just depends on the context of a given discussion, but sometimes, when debating, there are those who use various tactics to try to angle for position.

Honestly I think that those who accuse others of whataboutism are in profound bad faith.

Of course, it could be an indicator that there may be a miscommunication or misunderstanding as to what the topic actually is. It may not be as shady as some people try to make it out to be.

One question: do you believe that USA and Russia are two equal countries?
Or that USA is entitled to do certain things that Russia will never be allowed to do?

 

[Stevicus]

Honestly I think that those who accuse others of whataboutism are in profound bad faith.

I think that we have become so accustomed to the adversarial process that, for some people, winning is more important than any other consideration. Of course, winning a debate on Religious Forums is not exactly a stellar accomplishment, so I'm not sure why people feel the need to go all out like that, but anyway...

One question: do you believe that USA and Russia are two equal countries?
Or that USA is entitled to do certain things that Russia will never be allowed to do?

I consider that all countries should be held to the same standard, including my own. But by the same token, I think the US should not be held to any special responsibility to solve the world's problems. That's what I see the issue as really about. It's not about what Russia is doing as much as questioning what rights or responsibilities the US has in situations like this. Why does it always fall upon us to save the world from itself? If we're going to hold countries to the same standard, then why not share the responsibility and the hegemony?

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that we have become so accustomed to the adversarial process that, for some people, winning is more important than any other consideration. Of course, winning a debate on Religious Forums is not exactly a stellar accomplishment, so I'm not sure why people feel the need to go all out like that, but anyway...

Indeed.

I consider that all countries should be held to the same standard, including my own. But by the same token, I think the US should not be held to any special responsibility to solve the world's problems. That's what I see the issue as really about. It's not about what Russia is doing as much as questioning what rights or responsibilities the US has in situations like this. Why does it always fall upon us to save the world from itself? If we're going to hold countries to the same standard, then why not share the responsibility and the hegemony?

Yes...but it's not about the USA's duty to save Ukraine from the "wicked" stepmother called Russian Federation.
Because if that's what the case, the EU is powerful enough, economically and politically to help Ukraine alone.

It's about the banking élites who have already confessed they want to use Ukraine as a pawn to wage a world war against Russia. To dismember it and to seize its raw materials .

It's really mistifying that Americans pretend they didn't hear these élites saying that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is on topic.
That book explains why the desire for peace is suppressed: it is suppressed by homologation and "herd logic".
The herd doesn't seek peace. Read it.

Great.

Can't say that I care much.
I'm pretty much a pacifist and will never be pro-aggression or engage in a first strike - pre-emptive or otherwise.
I'm very much a live and let live type of person.

But that doesn't mean that I won't defend myself with everything I got when attacked.
That doesn't mean I'll bend over and drop my pants and allow attackers and oppressor to do and take what they want while hoping to avoid a fight.
No way. Attack me or my loved ones, and you'll face the full extent of my wrath or I'll go down trying.

I will not back down and let you bully me or my loved ones around. Not a chance.

 

[Stevicus]

Indeed.

Yes...but it's not about the USA's duty to save Ukraine from the "wicked" stepmother called Russian Federation.
Because if that's what the case, the EU is powerful enough, economically and politically to help Ukraine alone.

It's about the banking élites who have already confessed they want to use Ukraine as a pawn to wage a world war against Russia. To dismember it and to seize its raw materials .

It's really mistifying that Americans pretend they didn't hear these élites saying that.

Well, Americans are a certain mixed bag of opinions, but as I alluded to in another thread, Americans have tended to have a certain "national security" mindset which has existed since WW2 and the onset of the Cold War. Among other things, some of the consequences of that involves people arranging their minds in such a way that it creates a need to defend the government and system while maintaining a certain degree of plausible deniability. I don't think they're really "pretending."

Ironically, Americans aren't exactly strangers to the idea of expansionism by force to gain more land and resources. Americans tended to support policies like that during the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, continuing on with our forays into China and solidifying our hegemony over Latin America. As long as we knew our limits and didn't interfere in the political order of Europe or their imperial possessions/interests overseas, we were in a fairly safe and advantageous position, geopolitically speaking.

The problems came in when the political order in Europe pretty much self-destructed on its own, by its own devices and its own rules. Somehow, America got dragged into it - and not only in Europe, but throughout the remnants of the European colonial empires which were falling into chaos and vulnerable to communist agitation. Latin America was also vulnerable, so they had to intervene there a few times as well. At home, Americans were led to believe that we were defending the "free world," in some noble cause which had somehow locked us in a death struggle with communism.

Once you get believing in stuff like that, then anything is possible. It can also backfire, as it has on more than one occasion.

Even worse, whoever gets the job of President gets to be in command of the biggest, most devastating war machine ever devised, along with a state-of-the-art electronic surveillance net, and a world-wide intelligence agency with many capabilities - along with various domestic law enforcement agencies.

Oops.

We can only hope that some clinker doesn't get in and wind up in control of all of that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, Americans are a certain mixed bag of opinions, but as I alluded to in another thread, Americans have tended to have a certain "national security" mindset which has existed since WW2 and the onset of the Cold War. Among other things, some of the consequences of that involves people arranging their minds in such a way that it creates a need to defend the government and system while maintaining a certain degree of plausible deniability. I don't think they're really "pretending."

Ironically, Americans aren't exactly strangers to the idea of expansionism by force to gain more land and resources. Americans tended to support policies like that during the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, continuing on with our forays into China and solidifying our hegemony over Latin America. As long as we knew our limits and didn't interfere in the political order of Europe or their imperial possessions/interests overseas, we were in a fairly safe and advantageous position, geopolitically speaking.

The problems came in when the political order in Europe pretty much self-destructed on its own, by its own devices and its own rules. Somehow, America got dragged into it - and not only in Europe, but throughout the remnants of the European colonial empires which were falling into chaos and vulnerable to communist agitation. Latin America was also vulnerable, so they had to intervene there a few times as well. At home, Americans were led to believe that we were defending the "free world," in some noble cause which had somehow locked us in a death struggle with communism.

Once you get believing in stuff like that, then anything is possible. It can also backfire, as it has on more than one occasion.

Even worse, whoever gets the job of President gets to be in command of the biggest, most devastating war machine ever devised, along with a state-of-the-art electronic surveillance net, and a world-wide intelligence agency with many capabilities - along with various domestic law enforcement agencies.

Oops.

We can only hope that some clinker doesn't get in and wind up in control of all of that.

The US Deep State wants to rule over Europe too.
In the 19th century Europeans told Monroe: okay...all the Americas are your sphere of influence, as Europe is ours. Now...the entire world is America's sphere of influence, including Europe.

 

[Stevicus]

The US Deep State wants to rule over Europe too.
In the 19th century Europeans told Monroe: okay...all the Americas are your sphere of influence, as Europe is ours. Now...the entire world is America's sphere of influence, including Europe.

You may be right, although one thing that seems apparent is that America is not ruled by the same class of elite which might have ruled during Monroe's time. I don't think it's tied to any specific nation. Look at how many people from multiple countries passionately argue and advocate for the same geopolitical position, as if they're all from the same country with the same interests. We have non-Americans all but accusing Americans of treason for not supporting a globalist agenda.

It's somewhat ironic that there are non-Americans out there who ostensibly have a greater love and loyalty for the US deep state than many Americans seem to have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The US Deep State wants to rule over Europe too.

Ow goody, more conspiracy theory.

 

[Estro Felino]

You may be right, although one thing that seems apparent is that America is not ruled by the same class of elite which might have ruled during Monroe's time. I don't think it's tied to any specific nation. Look at how many people from multiple countries passionately argue and advocate for the same geopolitical position, as if they're all from the same country with the same interests. We have non-Americans all but accusing Americans of treason for not supporting a globalist agenda.

It's somewhat ironic that there are non-Americans out there who ostensibly have a greater love and loyalty for the US deep state than many Americans seem to have.

Bravo. Especially European globalists who belong to what I call the globalist gang.

And they are making nationalists win big in Europe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bravo. Especially European globalists who belong to what I call the globalist gang.

Just wondering.

When you use the word "globalists", what exactly do you mean?

 

[Estro Felino]

Just wondering.

When you use the word "globalists", what exactly do you mean?

Those who want to turn Europe into a godless sewer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those who want to turn Europe into a godless sewer.

Try giving a proper response instead of the usual vague juvenile playground mudslinging.

When you use the word "globalists", what exactly do you mean?
Or don't you even know yourself and is this just a case of throwing around buzzwords you heard in "deep state" conspiracy ramblings?

 

[Estro Felino]

Try giving a proper response instead of the usual vague juvenile playground mudslinging.

When you use the word "globalists", what exactly do you mean?
Or don't you even know yourself and is this just a case of throwing around buzzwords you heard in "deep state" conspiracy ramblings?

Do you want the names of the parties at the EU?
All those parties who hate Orban and Le Pen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you want the names of the parties at the EU?
All those parties who hate Orban and Le Pen.

At best, that tells me who you believe are "the globalists". It still doesn't tell me what you mean by it.

Your refusal to answer properly speaks volumes.

 

[Estro Felino]

At best, that tells me who you believe are "the globalists". It still doesn't tell me what you mean by it.

Your refusal to answer properly speaks volumes.

The globalists are those who want to have a global government (that is, the banking élites) whereas nation states have zero power.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The globalists are those who want to have a global government (that is, the banking élites) whereas nation states have zero power.

Ok, thank you. Not sure why you required three mudslinging posts before you could give a straight answer, but thanks anyway.

Can you name me a politician in Europe that advocates for such?
You said "all parties who hate Orban and Le Pen". I'm not aware of any who "hates" them, so I'll just read that as "dislikes".
So that would be pretty much all parties that aren't on the extreme right, it seems to me.
In Belgium that would pretty much be all parties except the neo-nazi's from Vlaams Belang.

I'm not aware of any of these people being in favor of a "global government".

But surely you have some evidence that demonstrates otherwise, right? ........right?

 

[Stevicus]

Bravo. Especially European globalists who belong to what I call the globalist gang.

And they are making nationalists win big in Europe.

Well, it's been a constant thing throughout history. There have always been aggressive, predatory, ambitious types who seek wealth, gold, glory, and power - just for its own sake. History is full of colorful figures who decided that "I'm going to just take whatever I want, and I'll fight whoever opposes me." The great game of world domination has gone on for millennia. It's taken many different forms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

History is full of colorful figures who decided that "I'm going to just take whatever I want, and I'll fight whoever opposes me."

Yeah. The current dictator of Russia fits that description quite neatly.