You're right, I didn't notice you were a different person.
Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.
There's no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.
My entire post was warning against gesturing towards a vague power controlling everything because it leads to conspiracism. One major example of that conspiracism is antisemitism. I have literally no idea how you can read my comment and come back thinking I'm arguing in favor of antisemitism. Yes, the space laser thing was a jab at the infamous "Jewish space laser" conspiracy, and I was explicitly saying avoid that kind of thinking.
The problem with our society isn't that there's a nonspecific ruling class directly dictating everything. There doesn't need to be. We proletariat as a class are fractured instead of united. There's no need to rig elections or prevent us from voting because we don't act as a threat against power in the first place. The system amorally chugs along unimpeded as we go about our individual lives instead of acting together. Our daily compliance is what sustains it, and the system is designed to punish noncompliance automatically.
The scary truth isn't that there's a puppetmaster pulling our strings, it's that there's nobody at the wheel at all.
I have no idea who you are talking to. Did you respond to the right comment? None of this makes sense as a response to anything I just said.
If you’re not sure what “they can’t survey the ethnically russian areas right now” means
You didn't say “they can’t survey the ethnically russian areas right now”. You said "that". I didn't know what you meant by "that". Not to mention the audacity to do this after asking what I meant by "Ukraine". You asked me to clarify something that was ambiguous and I did. I asked you to, and you seem to be using it as an excuse to quit the conversation.
I don't like this logic because it's predicated on an nondescript "they" with unlimited shadowy power. It leads to unhelpful conspiratorial thinking bordering on the magical. It obfuscates the real problems we face, and if we don't understand them, even a violent revolution to defeat it would eventually replicate the system we destroyed because we didn't understand how it came to be in the first place.
The reason it's hard to change the system is because the system is self-reinforcing through individuals acting in their own immediate best interests and not acting as a class, not because "they wouldn't let you change it, they'd just [rig the elections/not let you vote/kill you with a space laser]". But that's a complex answer, and it's much easier to believe in the latter and call it a day.
Theyre both right wing states.
... Yeah? And? One is still worse than the other. For example, one of them repeatedly invades its neighbor. And it's still bad when one nation invades another as part of a land grab.
Conscription
Conscription should be opposed in all cases, and unfortunately both sides use them in this war.
I’m not saying they can’t, Im just saying it is going to get more people killed to further supply them.
Actually, what gets people killed is invading other nations. The fact that you have accepted that as a foregone conclusion, and therefore saving lives requires the invaded people not fighting back, speaks volumes to your perspective. I don't accept this as a foregone conclusion. Russia should simply leave, and then people will stop dying.
Okay, but that can’t be taken in ethnically russian areas
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
and doesn’t answer the question.
It did answer the question. I said Ukraine wants to defend itself; you asked what I meant by that, and I said the Ukrainian population overwhelmingly supports the defense efforts. Hence that is what I mean when I say "Ukraine wants to defend itself".
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison.
You said, "Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies." You then said "And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?" Everything I have said has been a direct attack on that line of logic and applies perfectly. We ban asbestos to protect people from buying it and hurting themselves, despite the fact that everybody is supposedly well aware of the harms. The same goes for lead paint and lead pipes; ungrounded outlets, admittedly, most people don't actually fully understand, but the logic still largely applies. If you believe in the idea that we shouldn't need to save people from harming their own bodies, that perfectly applies to these things as well.
If you want to go back and revise what you said to explain why it's acceptable for society to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful construction materials but not to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful narcotics, then do that. Draw that distinction yourself if you think there is one instead of expecting me to read the wrinkles of your brain through the internet. You don't get to be mad at me for arguing against the words you used, that's all I have to go on.
So: when is it acceptable for society to save people from themselves, and when isn't it?
I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they're supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don't they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we're at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.
We don't want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.
You could just as easily day "oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state."
This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can't expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.
So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that.
People's material conditions and also not being dead matter more than imaginary lines on a map.
This is unbelievably dishonest. You think the only material change is a redrawing of borders? C'mon now.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian kills more Ukrainians than allowing their government to sign a peace deal, or at least allowing their government to lose more quickly.
Not your choice to make. If they want to defend their land against unwarranted invasion, that's their choice. You don't get to decide what somebody else's life is worth.
What do you mean by ukraine? Do you mean the government? The ukrainian population? Part of the ukrainian population?
Available information indicates a strong support of the defense effort among the Ukrainian populace.
I dont have that principle, I think there are cases when you should and when you shouldn’t [let aggressors do whatever they want]
Personally I don't think there's any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I'd be interested to hear the argument otherwise.
I’m more concerned about the US. Why is biggest kid on the block when it comes to genocide and war so enthusiastic to supply Ukraine with arms?
Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It's not a hard question to answer. That doesn't mean it's not also the right thing to do regardless. Bad people can go good things for bad reasons. Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I'm all for reducing America's global power, but I'm not so cruel as to choose other people's lives to trade for it against their will.
If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it's a good thing to air them in that; I also think making such invasions as difficult and expensive as possible is the anti-war position.
The philosopher was correct. We should keep quoting it.