Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 27^th, 2022 at 8:26pm:



Whaddaya got? - he's our Johnny.

Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2022 at 4:32pm:


So let see if we can sort out the "logic".

1. Russia thanked China, India and the UAE for NOT supporting the UNSC's anti-Russian resolution (these 3 nations abstained, in the vote re the final resolution condemning Russia). Apparently the original draft was "brutal and inhumane" in Russia's view.

Note: Russia has been fighting to protect Russians in East Ukraine for 8 years, so naturally Russia has its own POV on the causes of the present war/invasion of Ukraine, a POV which the West has declined to consider in ANY way shape or form. which is why the diplomacy failed.

2. In any case, Russia has a UNSC veto, which means ANY resolution the UNSC might pass regarding Russia's attack on Ukraine will not be accepted by the UNSC.   Got it?

3. And yet you delusional "freedom" f**kwits claim you have a grasp of logic, even after I have patiently   explained that  a UNSC with veto is incompatible with rule of international law, and the de-legitimization of war  - doable under properly construed international law. The very concept of "legal" war - ie legal murder- is an oxymoron, a cop-out to deluded "freedom" ideologues.

[Re the expression "f**kwits", I know delusions cannot be overcome  with insults....but even so, the holders of these delusions, and the harm they are causing in the world,  deserve contempt].

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 27^th, 2022 at 8:26pm:
 

Yes they are (you omitted the power to support them), it's just that sufficient force - based on the delusion itself - is upholding them.

Quote:


I'll run it past you again.

"the power which understands that 'rights' are human conventions" ie the power of (say) 'benevolent authority', which doesn't appeal to delusional non-existent  "rights" , but to the morality of fairness/justice, and universal well-being, as opposed to individual "rights". ...this is the power which will  prevail over the power of of your delusional 'inalienable rights' which is the basis of Western power currently, but which will eventually be replaced by power based on the reality that humans can decide the conventions by which they will live, including for example, the de-legitimization of war.

...Rather  than  persisting with the insane concept of "legal" war ie legal mass murder, all in the name of "freedom" based on delusional "rights".

How hard is that to understand ....(though delusions are very difficult to overcome...)

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2022 at 3:20pm:


Honestly, not "deliberate"..... so no need to worry about that. But crap?

Let's read on, hopefully you can enlighten us....

Quote:
 

The delusion of individual rights in the source of power in the West, yes, I stand by that statement (explained many times, the only refutation so far has been over who manages to hold onto the power) - after all, if the King is not the legitimate source of power, who or what is?

Quote:


Note, ANY system of governance involves the collectively given consent to be governed; we have discussed this before, you were unable to see the difference between consent by individuals given at divisive elections, or consent arrived at by consensus without elections. 

Quote:


As I said, that is only one model of governance.

Quote:


Morality is obviously a human invention, and can therefore be manifested in many different  forms depending on ideology; fairness and justice are obviously NOT compatible with a postulated  freedom of the individual to always act in his own self-interest, because individuals have different sets of self-interest.   

Quote:


Free, individual (even if "moral") agents will differ in their conception of morality, based on self-interest, rather than collective well-being.

That's why Putin - and every other world leader when it suits his own (or his nation's)  self-interest -  can thumb his nose at the UNSC.   


Quote:


Morality based on 'reverence for life' (of the species) cannot, and does not need to be, checked or recalled

Quote:


The power of the concept of 'reverence for life' exists, whether it is exercised or not.

Quote:


By a Constitution dedicated to achieving universal well-being.

Quote:


I understand it is based on a posited supremacy of the individual over collective well being; that's why the UN Syrian delegate was able to point to the  failure of the UNSC to achieve its "moral" aims ie collective well-being, in the absence of war,...war which is the opposite of 'morality' and reverence for life (of the species).   

Quote:


The ongoing attempt to ameliorate the disastrous effects of  the 'sovereign individual' delusion, noted above, has taken many unsatisfactory turns. 

But we must persevere, seeking to create a worthy civilization on earth, in fact we have no choice but to achieve universal sustainable prosperity on earth, in the age of MAD.
   

[quote author=MeisterEckhart wrote:

Ah yes, the 'sovereign individual'. Unless you've been reading new age claptrap (which is likely given you're Chinese under the CCP) the term is meaningless outside of the concept of 18th century absolute monarchs and totalitarian dictators (like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Putin and Xi Jinping's ambition).

Yet I distinctly remember seeing the placards of self-proclaimed 'sovereign individuals' in many protests re state-imposed covid restrictions.

Last month, not  the 18th century....

Quote:


Refuted above...and these sovereign individual types are the most extremely deluded, by 'inalienable rights' theories.

Quote:


Actually I don't see the CCP bothering much with 'individual rights' theory, though they are currently stressing 'common prosperity'.

Quote:


'Sovereign individual' - 'inalienable rights' are two sides of the same delusion.

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2022 at 3:20pm:


That's a pretty good summation.

cancel

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2022 at 6:58pm:


A load of idiotic, confused, dishonest crap.

1. Rights are human invention
2. Morality is not - as long as it is the morality of the CCP.
Source of values? Not stated.  What the source of value and authority for a morality NOT based on reverence for individual life is not stated.

You are too stupid for this, Chinese shill. As Billy said - fcck OFF.