Putin The Guilty

[osan]

The Osan who believes that normative considerations are important is closer to the Osan he ought to be than the one who does not.

Logic alone suffices to prove this simply because in the world of the latter there is no such thing as ought.

As I wrote prior, I'm not quite certain of what I was thinking at the time. Possibly I was not.

 

[ClaytonB]

Several. Mirriam Webster. Funk and Wagnall. Quite a few.

Well, give it a shot sometime, you might be surprised what it actually says versus what people claim that it says (and doesn't say).

 

[acptulsa]

Well, give it a shot sometime, you might be surprised what it actually says versus what people claim that it says (and doesn't say).

It doesn't say me knocking your hat off your head is me shedding a hat.

I've got enough of a working relationship with the book to know that. Unless this is something unique to the NIV...

Shedding blood and letting blood are not both done by the owner of the blood. You're not convincing me the Bible says otherwise. I know better. That's just the way life is.

 

[acptulsa]

I mean, it's not that big a deal. I'm not the one making a federal case out of it, or passing judgment on whether others ever read the Bible or not. I just found it disconcerting to see you say God would make victims pay for the crimes of those who wounded them. I thought that was government's job.

 

[Swordsmyth]

In the mean time, Jesus calls his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him. And those who have done so have proven that this rule about the last being first worked for them as it did for their Lord, just as he promised them it would. It has truthfully been said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

You carry the cross your way and I will carry it my way:

[h=1]1 Corinthians
Chapter 12[/h]14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.


[h=1]Luke 22:36[/h] “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

King James Version (KJV)

 

[ClaytonB]

I mean, it's not that big a deal. I'm not the one making a federal case out of it, or passing judgment on whether others ever read the Bible or not. I just found it disconcerting to see you say God would make victims pay for the crimes of those who wounded them. I thought that was government's job.

First, I don't judge people's religious walk. I only proclaim the Gospel, the rest is between each person and God. I take that very seriously, so I challenge you to comb through my post history and find anywhere that I've given anyone the Jehovah's Witness guilt-shakedown-at-your-doorstep routine.

Second, you've gotten the meaning of my last few posts reversed. Invisible Man speculated that the blood-dipped robes of Rev. 19 might be dipped in the blood of the saints (martyrs) themselves, not the blood of God's slaughtered enemies. He was not making an assertion to that effect, merely speculating. I replied by pointing out that Rev. 19 is actually quoting and extending Isaiah 63 where it explicitly states that the blood-dipped robe has been splattered in the blood of God's enemies, who have been trampled in the winepress. The imagery is as graphic as you can get, so it doesn't really leave any wiggle room. This is a deep topic (God's vengeance versus human endurance of violent oppression) but the point is that, when the End comes, yes, the wicked are going to be stamped out with bloody violence. The key is who is wielding the sword -- not us, but God.

In conclusion, there is no "blood-letting" in the Bible. There are no calls anywhere in the Bible for anyone to throw themselves onto the sword of the oppressor. There is no "Occupy Evil" in the Bible. No calls to have wokist "die ins" for the Gospel. There is bloodshed in the Bible, of two basic types[1]. The first is the bloodshed of the violent -- murder, war, oppression, tyranny. The second is the bloodshed of sacrifice. When a sacrifice occurs in the Bible, it is not a self-martyrdom, rather, the one to be sacrificed is seized by God, like the sacrificial animal in the temple. The sacrifice is performed and the blood is shed. This sacrificial bloodshed is the symbolic antithesis of the bloodshed of the violent oppressor. The oppressor is willing to sacrifice others, but will not put his or her own skin on the line. The sacrifice of the obedient, however, results in the shedding of their own blood, not as an act of self-martyrdom, but as an act of obedience to God who orchestrates events such that the wicked expose their true intentions and methods despite all their calculations and deceptive preparations to the contrary.

[1] -- It can be argued that there is a third, more complicated kind of bloodshed, and this can be called the bloodshed of cleansing, as when the Israelites were conquering the land of Canaan, but this kind of bloodshed does not "generalize" and only occurred by God's direct command through supernatural signs. And once this bloodshed is properly understood within the symbolic framework of the Bible, it becomes clear that this is actually just another variety of the bloodshed of sacrifice...

 

[Madison320]

Whether or not a country is corrupt by American standards should be unrelated to whether or not that country is allowed to exist.


The implication otherwise is that the United States should just be able to decide that a country is insufficiently worthy of sovereignty and borders, and declare it void.

Which, by the way, is what is ongoing in Ukraine. There is an ongoing debate as to whether or not Ukraine is a country, and one side of that debate wasn't succeeding with words so they decided to try using tanks instead.

At the moment I'm assigning about 60% of the blame on Russia and 40% on Ukraine. But either way none of it is even remotely close to a situation where the US should actually pick a side and then have the president use executive powers to declare economic war on the other side. It's insane for the US to be involved in this. It's dangerous, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral.

So my question for you is, "Are you in favor of Biden's sanctions against Russia?"

 

[Invisible Man]

At the moment I'm assigning about 60% of the blame on Russia and 40% on Ukraine.

That doesn't leave enough room for the share of blame that the US and its allies bear.

 

[Ender]

At the moment I'm assigning about 60% of the blame on Russia and 40% on Ukraine. But either way none of it is even remotely close to a situation where the US should actually pick a side and then have the president use executive powers to declare economic war on the other side. It's insane for the US to be involved in this. It's dangerous, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral.

So my question for you is, "Do you support the US actions against Russia?"

Donetsk and Luhansk have been asking for Russia's help for several years, as Ukraine has been killing 1000s of them. Crimea also seceded & Ukraine denied it. Not to mention the western coupe of the democratically elected leader by the west & it's allies in 2014.

 

[ClaytonB]

Sergey Karjakin banned from chess by FIDE

What a bunch of coward thugs. Karjakin is a Russian citizen from Ukraine. Naturally, his opinions will tend to align with the Russian point-of-view. He has not incited violence or tried to rabble-rouse any kind of mayhem. The intentional misinterpretation of his natural right to express his own private opinions (which the FIDE Ethics disciplinary document itself ironically acknowledges) is clearly politically motivated and is a shameful example of trying to force the big dog to back down by kicking its puppies. Karjakin makes his living from chess and, in part, from chess competition. Karjakin is not a Russian politician, does not hold any official capacity in the Russian government and his expression of his own private, political opinions clearly falls within the protected rights of free speech that FIDE itself cites in its ethics complaint.

Shame on you FIDE! And shame on the NATO/Nazi thugs that you Vichy-ite cowards grovel to! How's that for a political opinion?!

From Wiki:

Suspension from chess events

In late February 2022, after comments in support of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine were posted online by Karjakin and fellow Russian grandmaster Sergei Shipov, FIDE referred both to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission.[65][66]

In early March 2022, the Grand Chess Tour banned him from its tournaments, saying, "the GCT Board has determined that Grandmaster Sergey Karjakin is banned from all upcoming and future GCT events due to his recent hostile comments on social media supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine."[67]

On 18 March, Chess.com banned him from participating in all prize tournaments on its website.[68]

On 21 March, the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) banned him from playing any FIDE rated events for six months. Karjakin originally intended not to appeal the decision, but the Russian Chess Federation later announced that they would appeal.[4] The decision means that Kajarkin will not be able to participate in Candidates Tournament 2022.[69] In a post to his Telegram channel, Karjakin denounced FIDE for conflating sports with politics. He further declared that he considers himself a patriot first and a chess player second, and that he did not regret anything.[4][70]

 

[Madison320]

That doesn't leave enough room for the share of blame that the US and its allies bear.

I agree, but that's not really my point. We can assign blame all day. The important point is that the US government should not be forcing me to support Ukraine.

 

[Madison320]

Donetsk and Luhansk have been asking for Russia's help for several years, as Ukraine has been killing 1000s of them. Crimea also seceded & Ukraine denied it. Not to mention the western coupe of the democratically elected leader by the west & it's allies in 2014.

All good points. But Putin is no angel either.

My point is we should not be sanctioning Russia and supporting Ukraine.

 

[TheCount]

It's dangerous, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral.

I agree with the first two, disagree with the last.

So my question for you is, "Are you in favor of Biden's sanctions against Russia?"

Not particularly. I think that they're the most defensible sanctions of my lifetime, but I have disagreements with them.

 

[TheCount]

Donetsk and Luhansk have been asking for Russia's help for several years, as Ukraine has been killing 1000s of them.

Russia has been directly fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014.

Crimea also seceded & Ukraine denied it.

Before or after it was occupied by Russia?

Not to mention the western coupe of the democratically elected leader by the west & it's allies in 2014.

What about 2014, in your opinion, makes it a coup?

 

[Madison320]

I agree with the first two, disagree with the last.




Not particularly. I think that they're the most defensible sanctions of my lifetime, but I have disagreements with them.

I don't see how the sanctions are moral, considering that I'm being forced to support a country against my will.

I can't remember sanctions more dangerous in my lifetime. We're backing a nuclear power into a corner.

Plus rep for answering the question. In fact you were the only one who did!

 

[TheCount]

I don't see how the sanctions are moral, considering that I'm being forced to support a country against my will.

Would you support members of a community ostracizing a problematic member of that community?

 

[ClaytonB]

What about 2014, in your opinion, makes it a coup?

The picture that is worth a thousand words:

 

[Madison320]

Would you support members of a community ostracizing a problematic member of that community?

I support the government punishing citizens that violate other citizen's rights. I think that is government's only role.


Another major problem with the sanctions is that they are doing damage to what is probably the weakest our economy has ever been in history, based on fundamental measures like debt and the fed's balance sheet and over a decade of ZIRP. This is going to add to the extreme burden the poor are already facing and it's going to get much worse. I forgot to mention the weaponization of the dollar, that's going to accelerate inflation as countries like China try to unload their dollars.

 

[TheTexan]

Russia has been directly fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014.

Most of the assistance Russia has provided since 2014 has been aid/relief. Ukraine passed many laws/policies that removed people's ability to work/live in Donetsk/Luhansk, such as shutting down businesses and shutting off their pensions. As far as I know there weren't any committed troops from Russia but I do know there were volunteer units. Similarly there have been volunteer units from the UK and others fighting on the other side since 2014.

Before or after it was occupied by Russia?

Crimea was overwhelmingly pro-Russian long before it was occupied. This is not in dispute by anyone familiar with the region.

What about 2014, in your opinion, makes it a coup?

Old video (March 2014)

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't see how the sanctions are moral, considering that I'm being forced to support a country against my will.

Would you support members of a community ostracizing a problematic member of that community?

It depends on what you mean by "support".

I might agree or disagree with it, but I would not oppose it (in the sense of regarding the use of force against the ostracizers to be justified) unless others were being forced to participate in the ostracism against their wills.

I do not "support" (in the sense of "agree with" or "approve of") excluding or ostracizing people from a place of business on the basis of the color of their skin, and would regard such a policy as "problematic". I would counter-ostracize businesses which implemented such a policy by not giving them my custom, by encouraging others to do the same, and by criticizing those who did not. But so long as such businesses did not try to force others to implement the same policy (via Jim Crow laws, for example), I would oppose and would not "support" (in the aforementioned sense) the use of force against them in order to make them change their policy. Nor would I "support" (again, in the aforementioned sense) the use of force against those who did not choose to participate in the counter-ostracism of such businesses.

The sanctions Madison320 refers to are like those Jim Crow laws. They force others to participate in ostracism against their wills, and that is why they are morally objectionable. That the targets of the enforced ostracism may be "problematic" does not change this.