[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43693899]from a philosophical standpoint? what???? i don't think you understand philosophy. and i think you're missing the posts where people have been showing that protests are occurring over eastern ukraine as well.
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
also, god you're such a hypocrite, you're the one that's been fantasizing about the riot cops violently destroying the protestors this entire thread, which i think is a little more extreme than molotovs and rocks[/QUOTE]
The protests have been occurring throughout Ukraine, but the protesters are not in the majority, and never have been. I do understand philosophy perfectly. I am stating that the protest isn't a righteous fight against an invisible force where there is only things to gain. I am stating that roughly half of the fucking country has something to lose because of the protests, and it can and does count as "oppression" in some form when one portion of the country wants to evict the leadership that you've chosen in favour of their own. Go ahead and say that they "have a right to it because tyranny of the majority", or whatever, but the minority shouldn't get power over the majority because something bad happened to them, in my opinion.
As for the "fantasizing", well, I never once stated that police beating or shooting stragglers was okay. I've had a fuck ton of doublethink, getting excited at the streams, but I've only wanted the protests, or at least the violence contained within it, to stop since day one, and I stated that, too.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43693899]and i think you're missing the posts where people have been showing that protests are occurring over eastern ukraine as well.
[/QUOTE]
Which aren't going so well due to the pro-russian majority of the locals. They've stagnated in those areas, judging by the maps which have been coming out regularly.
If anything this looks like it may divide Ukraine.
[QUOTE=Cone;43694017]also throwing stones and molotovs vs stopping moving ambulances, taking the wounded patients out to the woods, and torturing and shooting them there. i don't think anything less than a government-strength effort could match that kind of shit[/QUOTE]
It's not systemic, same as protesters beating straggling cops to bloody pulps isn't systemic. Didn't we already have a discussion about Molotovs? They do massive damage to people, regardless or not if they are wearing armour. The wounds they cause can become nastily infected if not treated.
You people seem to be forgetting the things you constantly lecture others with. "Two wrongs don't make a right", "ends don't justify means", and whatnot.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694169]The protests have been occurring throughout Ukraine, but the protesters are not in the majority, and never have been. I do understand philosophy perfectly. I am stating that the protest isn't a righteous fight against an invisible force where there is only things to gain. I am stating that roughly half of the fucking country has something to lose because of the protests, and it can and does count as "oppression" in some form when one portion of the country wants to evict the leadership that you've chosen in favour of their own. Go ahead and say that they "have a right to it because tyranny of the majority", or whatever, but the minority shouldn't get power over the majority because something bad happened to them, in my opinion.
As for the "fantasizing", well, I never once stated that police beating or shooting stragglers was okay. I've had a fuck ton of doublethink, getting excited at the streams, but I've only wanted the protests, or at least the violence contained within it, to stop since day one, and I stated that, too.[/QUOTE]
it's not alright for even a democratically elected government to take away rights. and you're also ignoring the history of corruption concerning this president + his party (although from the sounds of it most the ukrainian political institution is quite corrupt). and again, how can you say you don't think that shit's okay when you've been constantly wanting it to happen?
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694230]It's not systemic, same as protesters beating straggling cops to bloody pulps isn't systemic. Didn't we already have a discussion about Molotovs? They do massive damage to people, regardless or not if they are wearing armour. The wounds they cause can become nastily infected if not treated.
You people seem to be forgetting the things you constantly lecture others with. "Two wrongs don't make a right", "ends don't justify means", and whatnot.[/QUOTE]
it's not systematic? the berkut is a government run organization, they're getting their orders from somewhere
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694230]It's not systemic, same as protesters beating straggling cops to bloody pulps isn't systemic. Didn't we already have a discussion about Molotovs? They do massive damage to people, regardless or not if they are wearing armour. The wounds they cause can become nastily infected if not treated.
You people seem to be forgetting the things you constantly lecture others with. "Two wrongs don't make a right", "ends don't justify means", and whatnot.[/QUOTE]
well regardless of how much damage a molotov can do, a few dudes throwing some firebombs is a pretty far cry from cops kidnapping, torturing and silencing people just because they took part in a protest. i don't like this violence any more than the next guy, but you can't seriously compare the two.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43694277]it's not alright for even a democratically elected government to take away rights. and you're also ignoring the history of corruption concerning this president + his party (although from the sounds of it most the ukrainian political institution is quite corrupt). and again, how can you say you don't think that shit's okay when you've been constantly wanting it to happen?[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between my dumb, at the moment thoughts (maybe I do have a bigger problem than that, I'll admit. I don't think it is normal to want to see three things happen at once, of which two have no logical reasoning behind them) and the ones I've taken the time to actually be reasonable about.
I've used a bit of logic that makes it impossible to argue about rights. I'm looking at it from a lens that is far outside the "box of natural law". It's sort of hard to explain, but my logic works on the fact that this and that have no value except within the context of this and that. Or, I'm saying that it doesn't really matter what one side does and one side doesn't (on a big societal level, the police and protesters who singled people out can go fuck themselves they are guilty as shit), what both sides want is essentially the same, to gain power over the other side.
But I sort of jumped logical trains out of nowhere multiple times and I think my head hit the keystone on a brick tunnel somewhere along the line.
I sort of just wanted to use the zero-sum logic just for the sake of using the logic (most of the argumentative logic I use is based on stuff I just throw together for fun or use in worldbuilding in things that I write), but I also wanted to win badly enough that I dug some strange, abstract, partially irrelevant shit out of the depths of my head to use.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43694277]it's not systematic? the berkut is a government run organization, they're getting their orders from somewhere[/QUOTE]
can't forget about those two dead dissidents they found with torture marks either, and one of them was kidnapped with the guy who's talking about the beatings going on in the woods. there's clearly some people giving orders here
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694459]There's a difference between my dumb, at the moment thoughts (maybe I do have a bigger problem than that, I'll admit. I don't think it is normal to want to see three things happen at once, of which two have no logical reasoning behind them) and the ones I've taken the time to actually be reasonable about.
I've used a bit of logic that makes it impossible to argue about rights. I'm looking at it from a lens that is far outside the "box of natural law". It's sort of hard to explain, but my logic works on the fact that this and that have no value except within the context of this and that. Or, I'm saying that it doesn't really matter what one side does and one side doesn't (on a big societal level, the police and protesters who singled people out can go fuck themselves they are guilty as shit), what both sides want is essentially the same, to gain power over the other side.
But I sort of jumped logical trains out of nowhere multiple times and I think my head hit the keystone on a brick tunnel somewhere along the line.
I sort of just wanted to use the zero-sum logic just for the sake of using the logic (most of the argumentative logic I use is based on stuff I just throw together for fun or use in worldbuilding in things that I write), but I also wanted to win badly enough that I dug some strange, abstract, partially irrelevant shit out of the depths of my head to use.[/QUOTE]
you can't make it impossible to argue about rights when that's what these protests are about
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
stop trying to be smart and philosophical to try and justify your hardon for oppressive governments murdering protestors
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43694520]you can't make it impossible to argue about rights when that's what these protests are about
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
stop trying to be smart and philosophical to try and justify your hardon for oppressive governments murdering protestors[/QUOTE]
I meant it was impossible to argue about rights because they only exist as a human philosophical/societal concept and my logic was like space aliens looking at all of that from the big space philosophy UFO.
Or rather, my argument dismissed them as subjective and didn't have any weight in deciding who was right or wrong, and threw them onto the big pile of "things each side are fighting about". I argued that they were just another factor in a power struggle between two groups that could only benefit from the loss of each other, and that technically both sides were trying to take them away from each other.
Or, "Rights are subjective and hold no weight on anything from my point of view and there is no empirical evidence for or against this so we just have to disagree".
Anyway, I don't have a boner for governments murdering protesters. I don't have a boner for uprisings or violence on a societal level because of mostly intangible (i.e. systemic slaughter of a group) reasons, either, so maybe that's where all of this stems from.
what a stupid argument. the value of human life is subjective so why are you whining about not wanting people to die? democracy is just a human concept so why are you whining about a minority overthrowing a majority-elected government?
Or maybe I do just want to watch people suffer for some strange reason but I don't consciously know it.
Who knows.
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43694772]what a stupid argument. the value of human life is subjective so why are you whining about not wanting people to die? democracy is just a human concept so why are you whining about a minority overthrowing a majority-elected government?[/QUOTE]
I'm lifting the value off of everything on an objective level, and then arguing for my own subjective values while stating that I'm impervious to any arguments regarding natural law.
The value of everything is subjective, that is an undeniable truth. It doesn't mean I can't argue for what I subjectively think is right, wrong, worst, and best.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694786]Or maybe I do just want to watch people suffer for some strange reason but I don't consciously know it.
Who knows.
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
I'm lifting the value off of everything on an objective level, and then arguing for my own subjective values while stating that I'm impervious to any arguments regarding natural law.
The value of everything is subjective, that is an undeniable truth. It doesn't mean I can't argue for what I subjectively think is right, wrong, worst, and best.[/QUOTE]
maybe you're just a pseudo-intellectual who should stop trying to argue things he doesn't understand
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43695356]maybe you're just a pseudo-intellectual who should stop trying to argue things he doesn't understand[/QUOTE]
I understand what I'm arguing just fine. I'm not the one caught up in a massive anti-intellectual circlejerk about how "freedom is good oppression is bad end of story", as if something like that is that simple at all.
I'm not the one who puts their own ideals onto some pedestal and pretends that said pedestal can't be toppled, and is infinitely high and mighty. I know that I just think one way, you think another. Thing is, I'm trying to build my logic and points by looking at the context in which arguments and beliefs themselves exist and then using that to argue about the protests. If that is pseudo-intellectual, then you might as well call all of philosophy regarding logic, context, and ideology pseudo-intellectual.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43695464]I understand what I'm arguing just fine. I'm not the one caught up in a massive anti-intellectual circlejerk about how "freedom is good oppression is bad end of story", as if something like that is that simple at all.
I'm not the one who puts their own ideals onto some pedestal and pretends that said pedestal can't be toppled, and is infinitely high and mighty. I know that I just think one way, you think another. Thing is, I'm trying to build my logic and points by looking at the context in which arguments and beliefs themselves exist and then using that to argue about the protests. If that is pseudo-intellectual, then you might as well call all of philosophy regarding logic, context, and ideology pseudo-intellectual.[/QUOTE]
you have no argument, you have no logic and you're a hypocrite
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43695464]I understand what I'm arguing just fine. I'm not the one caught up in a massive anti-intellectual circlejerk about how "freedom is good oppression is bad end of story", as if something like that is that simple at all.
I'm not the one who puts their own ideals onto some pedestal and pretends that said pedestal can't be toppled, and is infinitely high and mighty. I know that I just think one way, you think another. Thing is, I'm trying to build my logic and points by looking at the context in which arguments and beliefs themselves exist and then using that to argue about the protests. If that is pseudo-intellectual, then you might as well call all of philosophy regarding logic, context, and ideology pseudo-intellectual.[/QUOTE]
Just a side point but you pepper your sentences with unnecessary punctuation and "hey i'm smart" clause breaks and it makes your posts very hard to read!
Hey guys? I like this thread because it tells me what's happening in Ukraine. I would really like to focus on Ukraine.
[QUOTE=Juniez;43695503]Just a side point but you pepper your sentences with unnecessary punctuation and "hey i'm smart" clause breaks and it makes your posts very hard to read![/QUOTE]
I don't do that on purpose. I get Kirk syndrome whenever I don't go over what I'm writing a few times.
[QUOTE=Blanketspace;43695513]Hey guys? I like this thread because it tells me what's happening in Ukraine. I would really like to focus on Ukraine.[/QUOTE]
I think it's more important that U.S.S.R. spew random, pseudo-philosophy he picked up from a website he read 3 years ago than discuss what's happening to real people.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43695464]I understand what I'm arguing just fine. I'm not the one caught up in a massive anti-intellectual circlejerk about how "freedom is good oppression is bad end of story", as if something like that is that simple at all.
I'm not the one who puts their own ideals onto some pedestal and pretends that said pedestal can't be toppled, and is infinitely high and mighty. I know that I just think one way, you think another. Thing is, I'm trying to build my logic and points by looking at the context in which arguments and beliefs themselves exist and then using that to argue about the protests. If that is pseudo-intellectual, then you might as well call all of philosophy regarding logic, context, and ideology pseudo-intellectual.[/QUOTE]
i think what you're doing is overcomplicating things and applying philosophy 101 to them in place of having an actual argument, and using this as an excuse to intellectually fellate yourself. am i right or am i right
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43695473]you have no argument, you have no logic and you're a hypocrite[/QUOTE]
My point was that there are no inherently right or wrong sides in the conflict, and that the protesters who single out officers are just as bad as the officers who single out protesters.
One of my arguments was that the protesters were taking away power (and plausibly stability) from the half of the country that supported the government, or didn't want the protests to go through. The government removing some of their rights was a way to prevent said protesters from taking away from the government supportive side of the country.
I argued that the government taking away the protester's rights was in line with the protesters forcing their politics on the government and government supportive side of the country, and that they are not inherently wrong in doing this because rights are not an absolute good.
I argued that no matter what the cops did, there was no reason for the protesters to single out and abuse police that they had caught, too, as long as they were unrelated to the ones who actually antagonized them or singled them out. I do not believe in "two wrongs don't make a right", but I was pointing out your hypocrisy in making an exception to your own beliefs because they were hurting cops and "oppressive" people. That is not hypocrisy, my beliefs are consistent. When I said I wanted to see the protests crushed, I meant I wanted to see the violence stopped, even by force or by an oppressive faction.
Those were my arguments, argumentative points, and all of my logic right there. Nice and concise.
Less philosophical debate and more analysis as to what's actually going on right now. Please.
So those tanks huh
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;43697260]So those tanks huh[/QUOTE]
Are probably in a ditch, or some opposition stronghold....
30 minutes from kiev.
Don't worry the pizza is now free
[QUOTE=Cone;43695575]i think what you're doing is overcomplicating things and applying philosophy 101 to them in place of having an actual argument, and using this as an excuse to intellectually fellate yourself. am i right or am i right[/QUOTE]
It's less I'm trying to suck my hypothetical dick and more I just got so enraged at what people were saying about the conflict and what people were justifying that I started desperately throwing all of my internalized textbooks worth of bedtime pondering at them to try and make them stop while knowing that it won't do anything except disrupt the thread.
It isn't overcomplicating things to try and make people at least stop seeing it in black and white, it certainly isn't anti-intellectualism or pseudo-intellectualism to try and pull people from their lenses of bias, even if it is for selfish purposes, but I still went on some weird tangential rant, same in another thread, and then depression and shit and I forgot to go into this thread to apologise or give up or whatever so I can go fuck off and do other things without feeling bad because I didn't acknowledge my own catastrophic fuck up in the past few days.
Abstract thought and things relating to fiction are the only two sectors of thought that I'm even partially adept in and the first started leaking into my ranting or something, and even then I can't manifest those thoughts at all without screwing something up somewhere along the line. Point is, I fucked up, and now I have to go to a doctor or spend more time with my girlfriend or something because I'm unnaturally depressed and angry.
Anyway, I thought they pushed the police back a lot further than they did unless the Majdan stream is repeating. What ended up happening once they got into that government building a few nights ago?
Tanks confirmed for driving in a perfect circle with a 30 minute radius around Kiev.
30 minutes away and still rolling.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43695636]
One of my arguments was that the protesters were taking away power (and plausibly stability) from the half of the country that supported the government, or didn't want the protests to go through. The government removing some of their rights was a way to prevent said protesters from taking away from the government supportive side of the country.
I argued that the government taking away the protester's rights was in line with the protesters forcing their politics on the government and government supportive side of the country, and that they are not inherently wrong in doing this because rights are not an absolute good.
[/QUOTE]
The government should support the people. When the people are divided, they don't just pick a side and say 'screw you' to the rest of the population. They find a middle ground, or they get ousted.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;43697333]Don't worry the pizza is now free[/QUOTE]what about TVs
get your free TVs
[QUOTE=gudman;43692490]As opposed to true Russian, I assume?
Anyway, "the wrong people" bit comes across as terribly idealistic. Riot cops and various special services don't work for "wrong" or "right" people, they don't work for people at all. They work for faceless, non-personified state. They have their functions, and they execute them as needed. You can't expect riot cops to suddenly just "open their eyes". Same as journalists, they're not supposed to pick sides. Riot cops are there to enforce order, that's what they're trying to do, for the better of everyone, not just government.
And that strange vid with "CCO" guys doesn't really prove Russian influence, Belorussia has the same service with the same name. I can easily imagine Ukrainian government calling for help from Belorussian special forces, considering they have anti-riot experience, unlike their Russian counterpart.[/QUOTE]
It's possible, Russia and Belarus are in the same union state.
But why would Berkut beat innocent protestors, even journalists without good reason, how is that not picking sides?
Just because they work for a non-personified state and have to follow orders doesn't mean they don't have the ability to decline their orders, they aren't programmed robots and they know what they're doing.
Enforcing order by beating journalists and peaceful protesters, you really expect that to be the better of everyone?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43695636]One of my arguments was that the protesters were taking away power (and plausibly stability) from the half of the country that supported the government, or didn't want the protests to go through. The government removing some of their rights was a way to prevent said protesters from taking away from the government supportive side of the country.
I argued that the government taking away the protester's rights was in line with the protesters forcing their politics on the government and government supportive side of the country, and that they are not inherently wrong in doing this because rights are not an absolute good.[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj126/merera/livejournal/map_Be4uDfrCcAAEqaz.jpg[/thumb]
If we consult this map from the Euromaidan twitter feed, we can see that the protests have spread reasonably far into the pro-Russia area of Ukraine. While the protesters might not be a majority of the population, they are a proportion substantial enough to create this much of an uproar. The majority of citizens will nearly always be apathetic to these kinds of events regardless of their own beliefs, due to factors such as distances to protests and concern for the well-being of themselves and their family.
Considering the inherent doctrine of a democracy, 'by the people, for the people', we can argue that Yanukovich has removed some of the basic freedoms of the Ukrainian people for the benefit of one half of the country. It can also quite easily be argued that these changes were intended to keep him and his party in power, by enabling his institution to silence any kind of public opposition.
The tyranny of the majority is always a potential result of democracy, but what we have here is the tyranny of a minority, that is Yanukovich and his party. You say that the protesters are trying to "forc[e] their politics on the government", but I am at a loss as to what their 'politics' are. No leader or even spokesperson has emerged, and they have no agenda or mandate apart from a will to preserve the freedoms of themselves, their families and their countrymen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
