[consumer451]

> It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is.

This is such a wild take from my POV, a person in the EU.

Have you considered the possibility that the nearest imperialist power beginning to violently invade Europe again is likely to trigger a common reaction?

This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there is a clear right vs. wrong. What exactly do you expect the news to talk about that is less “single sided?”

[bubaumba]

I can explain a bit. Russians living in Empire of Evil can see all internet including US and EU news. At the same time 'Putin propaganda' channels are blocked in EU. In EU only one side is available. This creates an information bubble, as intended. Which is a basic crowd control technique used to drive public opinion. In this case to support the war. The result is obvious, EU polls show much stronger support than the rest of the world. Even though media claims most of the world is against Putin, if you look at the map it's only minority, NATO and a few allies. In some EU countries it's even a crime look through the bubble's wall. Most don't realize it even exists. They accept the arguments from their politicians. Like it's a business opportunity, or it's a cheap way to harm Putin. The price for that is hundreds of thousands of human lives on both sides. Which is generally considered as ok, as those are Russians and Ukrainians, not us. Actually media doesn't talk much about it.

[kstenerud]

Doesn't seem to jibe with https://www.techspot.com/news/105929-russia-tests-cutting-it...

[mylidlpony]

Hahahaha, what? Most of western news sources are blocked in russia after they published Bucha reports. They are literally jailing people for mentioning it on personal vk pages and such.

[scotty79]

> At the same time 'Putin propaganda' channels are blocked in EU.

I don't think that's true. You can find a lot of that online, with or without commentary. There are even European comentators siding with adjecent views. Though it doesn't leak into European public media too much (although some of its more absurdist concepts sadly do).

It's just that "the other side of the story" is something that vast majority of Europeans are repulsed by because of its intrinsic idiocy, blatant disingenuity and evilness. Some of the European countries that got out from under russian influence remember it from the times of poverty and oppression. That's where the part of the opinion bias on that subject between Europe and the rest of the world comes from. Firsthand expeirience with russia. Supporting Ukraine is both helping Ukraine with their current russian expeirience and possibly a hope of saving all future Europeans from having russian expeirience ever again.

[usea]

Europeans having stronger opinions than others about Russia invading Europe is not evidence of a conspiracy.

[kristiandupont]

>In this case to support the war.

while all of you Putin supporters are such a peace loving people, right?

[OfficeChad]

Fuck off.

[red_trumpet]

> Russians living in Empire of Evil can see all internet including US and EU news.

That's just not true, e.g. Russia also blocked the German propaganda channel dw.com (Deutsche Welle).

[ulfw]

Ah yes calling DW a propaganda channel.

We found the Russian state actor account here.

[red_trumpet]

DW is literally the only German state owned media, financed directly by tax money. And they don't even have a German broadcast anymore.

Compare this to the other German public broadcasting (ARD and ZDF), who are financed by their own (obligatory) dues ("Rundfunkbeitrag"), which is set by politics, but cannot be easily taken away from them.

[immibis]

Here's a litmus test for German propaganda channels:

What does it say about Palestine?

[konart]

>This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there is a clear right vs. wrong.

There is no right or wrong in politics.

[McDyver]

Yes, yes there is.

It is wrong to kill or perform any violence or harm against children in any war context.

[konart]

Sure, but in the end politics is just about economy in a broad scense of word.

I'm not saying death and murder is okay. I'm saying coutries do what they have to do by means the have (or they think they have).

[akoboldfrying]

Do you think killing a child's parents does not harm them?

You haven't thought this through.

[sssilver]

Every single developed country today touting moral rights has its foundation in those "wrongs". Its citizens gleefully consuming the resources those "wrongs" have created, so they can preach morality online.

It is the nature of life itself to "kill and perform violence", children and otherwise. "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must".

Death is, as of now, life's only mechanism for iteration in its process of endless prototyping.

Every marvel that humankind has produced has its roots in extreme violence. From the creation of Ancient Greece to the creation of the United States, children had to die horrible deaths so that these things could come to be.

Anyone can make arbitrary claims about what's right and what's wrong. The only way to prove such a claim is through victory, and all victory is violence against the loser.

[ribadeo]

Thanks for summarizing so eloquently what is WRONG with the precept that might equals right. If she floats she's a witch, if she drowns she must have been innocent is the flip side fallacy, but what you just outlined amounts to: "i am bad on purpose, what are YOU gonna do about it?"

I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle. No. A thousand times no.

The answer is A SYSTEM.

The answer to bully predator logic is human society and systematic thought. This provides the capability to resist such base immorality as you and historical predators have proposed.

[scotty79]

That SYSTEM that enables modern enligtened society is called "monopoly on violence".

There's no way out of violence, your system needs to be founded on it.

And I wouldn't say that the what previous poster described is akin to witch trials. It's rather akin to painting the bullseye labelled "right" after taking the shot and hitting something other than your foot. And that was what all human cultures were doing since the beginning of time. Recent western trend to paint the bullseye labelled "wrong" at their hit is novel but equally disingenious.

[Amezarak]

> I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle.

Can you explain what makes it invalid besides the fact that you and me don't like it?

There are no "valid" or "invalid" moral principles, there is no objectively correct morality, nor does the idea even make sense. Morals are historically contingent social phenomena. Over different times and even over different cultures today, they vary dramatically. Everyone has them, and they all think they are right. That quickly reduces all discussion in cases like this to ornate versions of "you're wrong" and "no, YOU'RE wrong."

[exceptione]

It is better to be precise here. Validity could be a different measure than correct. It might very well be like you reserve the latter for some ethereal mathematical property, free of axioms, to which type you want to cast "validity in the domain of morality", which then has to pass the type checker for mathematical expressions.

In Philosophy and Ethics you strive to improve your understanding, in this case in the domain of human social groups. Some ideas just have better reasoning than others.

To say no idea is good, because your type checker rejects any program you bring up is an exercise in futility.

"might makes right" is a justification for abuse of other people. Abusing other people might be understood as using other people while taking away their freedom. If you think people should rather be owned than free, go pitch that.

I emphasize: it would be your pitch. There is no hiding behind a compiler here.

On topic: "might makes right" prevails in societies where people have limited rights and therefore need to cope with abuse. There is a reinforcing mechanism in such sado-societies, where sufferers are to normalize that, thereby keeping the system in place.

For example the Russian society did never escape to freedom, which is a tragedy. But I think every person has an obligation to do his best in matters of ethics, not just sitting like a slave and complain about how you are the real victim while doing nothing. A society is a collective expression of the individuals.

[kristiandupont]

Yes there is.

[konart]

No there is not. It's just economy in a broad scence of word.

[kristiandupont]

That's a cop-out. Unless you want to expand your statement to "there is no right and wrong, period", which just means you have no moral compass.