Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Political / diplomatic points made and now it will stall there for quite a while, I guess. See "Turkey".
Ukraine IV
- Thread starter -alan-
- Start date
- Status
Political / diplomatic points made and now it will stall there for quite a while, I guess. See "Turkey".
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yet again, you miss the question. It was not me who asked a question about the Falklands. My question was not about the Falklands, it was about the moral case for invasion generally. More importantly, I asked that question not in isolation but in response to, and in the context of, a number of posts making the moral case for peace. If peace is the objective, claiming moral superiority in this particular case does not make the moral case for peace more generally. Claiming moral superiority over Putin is not good enough, Putin has set the bar very, very low. If we are genuinely interested in peace in a world beyond Putin, we have to set the bar much, much higher.
It is precisely because Putin’s invasion is so abhorrent that this thread should be able to include a discussion of a world based on peace. Yes, Putin needs to go first, and I am open to the ways and means of achieving that objective, but the moral case for peace beyond that objective has to inform those ways and means. If we fail to inform the here and now with the moral case for peace in the wider world, we risk sowing the seeds for another Putin wearing a different hat in the future.
The moral case against Putin’s invasion is obvious and clear, but in making that case, as I have already said, more than one poster on here has contrasted that with the West’s moral position for peace. It is morally and intellectually dishonest to claim moral superiority for the West without looking at at wider experience and looking before and beyond Putin.
The whataboutery argument comes up time and time again and from the same mouths that use “woke” in the pejorative, and for the same purpose, that is, as a defence against hypocrisy, an attempt to silence criticism, and to constrain debate.
How we have got to a situation in a modern world with all the warnings from history that we’ve had, where a megalomaniac is still able to invade a sovereign country, really should be up for discussion.
This is a public thread and attempts to claim it for one particular nationalistic view is intellectually dishonest undemocratic, and in a global world, quite anachronistic.
Also intellectually vacuous and undemocratic is the attempt to turn this into a black and white, for us or against us, good and evil argument by the use of ridicule, false representation, marginalisation and demonisation of alternative views.
It should be possible to point to the abhorrence of Putin’s invasion and go on to discuss the moral case for a more peaceful world beyond Putin without the attempts to silence and ridicule. Hitler was an abhorrence, but to blame the rise of Nazism on that one abhorrent human being misses the social, economic and racial background which made him possible. The argument that *a* fascist leader would emerge in the conditions facing the Weimar Republic cannot be just be dismissed with ridicule and accusations of “whataboutery”. The lesson that social, economic and racial injustice are the precursors to fascism needs to be heeded today perhaps more than ever. We need to stay woke.
If we are genuinely interested in a more peaceful world, this is exactly the thread to discuss the difficulties and complexities of getting there in a world that is not black and white, where good and evil isn’t always so clearly defined and where evil sometimes conflicts with our own nationalist loyalties and our own sense of national identity.
Amber Audio
This is the Day
If they are mining it won’t help the UN safe zone plans.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ec...s-for-grain-exports-from-ukrainian-ports.html
Turkey supports the UN-proposed plan to export grain from Ukraine, which foresees the creation of a safety zone directly near Ukraine's territorial waters where the vessels going to the Ukrainian ports will undergo checks in order to prevent weapons transportation.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
There seems to be a concerted effort to constrain “the central issue of this thread” without ever defining what that central issue is. Who defines what the central issue is? What is the central issue of this thread if not the abhorrence of Putin and his invasion? If it is to look at the abhorrence of Putin and his invasion, to look at it from one particular view and that view is to look at it in isolation, then it is not looking at the nature of abhorrence and risks descending into a nationalistic jingoism.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
I have already acknowledge the problem of moral absolutism. But criticising instances of moral relativism in this thread does not mean support for moral absolutism.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
It does send out a signal to Putin, though, that the EU has an interest in the interests of Ukraine and Moldova, so these countries shouldn't be considered in isolation. It's a bit like the applications to NATO of Finland and Norway in that regard. Membership is the objective, but candidate status has its own benefits too.
World peace is a big topic - encompassing more countries than just Ukraine - and therefore deserves its own thread IMO. However, in the context of Ukraine it's a misplaced argument: for one, Putin is not interested in peace; and second, it's a bit of a Trojan horse for the comrades to show understanding/support for Russia. Ultimately, though, it doesn't recognise the realties of the world we live in, in that tensions often spill over to armed conflict. While we live in that world, the moral case for defeating Putin remains. And defeating/stopping him might even lead to peace.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
The problem with the thread has often been "whataboutism" which then dilutes and distracts from people dealing with the Invasion of Ukraine - which is the topic that generated the thread. This is perhaps more important than considering the rules of a debating society. However a forum like PFM means you or I can start other threads about related issues. People can then decide what issues concern them.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Precisely
No, peace was brought up in this thread, by yourself amongst others, so why is discussion of what that means constrained and ridiculed? It is a difficult but important topic that cannot be applied only to Putin if it is to have any value[/QUOTE]
Whether Putin is interested in peace is irrelevant to the conditions that create a totalitarian leader and what needs to follow in order to minimise another. Your use of language such as ‘comrade’ is an attempt further ringfence discussion and identify any alternative voice with false associations.
The argument for peace absolutely recognises the realities of the world we live in, it is the attempt to constrain the argument to goodies and baddies with no recognition of where good and bad comes from beyond the vested interest of national identities that fails to recognise realities.
What we are talking about here is looking at those realities verses using ridicule, whataboutery and false associations to avoid looking at them.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Harold Wilson was once asked an awkward question about the Brits being in Cyprus. His reply was along the lines:
"Well, Cyprus needs to be seen in the context of the problems of the Middle-East. Now in Israel..."
8-]
The problems in Israel were/are also important, etc, of course. And may interact indrectly or give moral commons. But despite that the practical issues may best be helped by considering them in more than one thread. All the debate isn't a substitute for decisions about what to do (or not) about each specific situation.
"Well, Cyprus needs to be seen in the context of the problems of the Middle-East. Now in Israel..."
8-]
The problems in Israel were/are also important, etc, of course. And may interact indrectly or give moral commons. But despite that the practical issues may best be helped by considering them in more than one thread. All the debate isn't a substitute for decisions about what to do (or not) about each specific situation.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
No idea what the rules of a debating society are, never been anywhere near one, my question was about what are the central issues you speak of, who decides what they are, what authority do those people have to constrain the range and scope of the discussion?
If a discussion is not permitted both range and scope, it is the very definition of an echo chamber.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Your definition of "not permitted" is odd given that you, like the rest here, can make points in other threads or start them if you feel existing ones don't cover what you wish. That's how the OT "debating society" of PFM works.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Like I said, who is it that claims the authority to define what the central issue of a thread is, and to demand that anyone who does not adhere to that undefined central issue has go to another thread. Who is it who claims the authority to decide what is, and what is not permitted on this thread? Where are the rules of this PFM debating society of which you speak?
anubisgrau
pfm Member
What would you actually expect? Ukraine and Moldova in state they are to climb over much more developed states that are way more compliant with the EU norms and regulation and already in ascension process for like 10-15 years?
It's a symbolic gesture of support and it shouldn't be taken as anything else.
You anyway left the EU and even if all of the PFM will claim to be "remain" as you all claimed to be opposing the interventionism of US/UK military when it happened, I wouldn't take that with a grain of salt.
Just as most of you believe that the Union Jack should forever stay at Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar and elsewhere. I fail to see a difference to Putin's wish to have a Russian flag in all the former USSR states, including Ukraine.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
Really?
You don't see the difference between countries remaining with the nationality they desire vs killing them because they don't welcome an invading army?
Do you think it would be legitimate for UK restore the Union flag to all of it's former states?
Bizarre.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Erm, you are confusing a view you don't hold with a "demand". I'm giving my view. You're free to feel otherwise.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You fail to see the killing part that's happening right now.
Now you have finally equated opponents of Putin's war to mass murderers.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
What's your actual point about the conflict in Ukraine?
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
He (?) also seems to be attempting a mindreading act with claims about what "most of us" think. i.e. ye olde Straw Man.
- Status