Is your wife one of those crazy monarchists? I don't have any preference for the current theocratic dictarorship vs monarchical dictarorship. If they want to be en enslaved people I see no point what the change in figurehead does. I hate monarchies and see no reason to support her kind. I'd fully support any side that wants a proper democracy for iran.
Purely historically too of course the USA and Israel are rhe last people whose words I'd trust about wanting to bring "freedom" to a country. The only thing they are experts at are toppling democracies and installing dictators, including in Iran itself.
No, she’s not a monarchist, and she’s actually very uncomfortable with people referring to “prince” Reza Pahlavi.
I think she understands that every movement needs a leader, so she’s ok with Mr. Pahlavi leading that, i.e. a constitutional assembly. But beyond that she doesn’t recognize the monarchy
That's much better then. And I personally am just very wary of any entity claiming they will "just" be a king for a while and cede power given how dictatorial the last pahlavi was.
The bus supposedly only had Israelis. Israel attacked a neutral country Qatar with a missile to eliminate some supposed enemy agent to a civilian building, so I don't think they have any problems with this.
Iran if they have any sense should be prepared for a massive self defense and counter attack. "Talks" from the USA and Israel have a precedent of being attacks and invasions.
If there's one thing that's pretty clear, it's that the Iranian government is quite aware of this and of how the US acts. The US government, on the other hand, seems oblivious to anything about how the Iranian government acts.
The US government seems to be pretty oblivious to how it itself acts, expecting them to understand another country's motivations is so many steps beyond that.
I am honestly surprised and shocked to admit but Iran is the sanest and least immoral side in this conflict and it's not because my views of Iran improved or changed much. I couldn't imagine I'd be saying such a thing a few years ago.
r/flairedusersonly I mean r/whinysafespacecriers I mean r/hypocrites is up to their usual whining "everyone is a liberal infiltrator" and "clearly trumps just trolling" again:
I think we should troll a bit whenever we meet magas with jokes such as "I wish to disembowel trump", "nuke Mar a'lago" and so on I am sure they will take it in the good humor its intended to be.
Could work in cooling the belligerence of Israel too, especially if we can manage to decommission all their nukes in the strike. Don't look at me, you're the one who brought up nuking.
With precision guided munition and air superiority there is no need for indiscriminate nuclear bombs.
But Japan does go to show that:
1. Leadership change is not voluntary, even when faced with obvious military dominance.
2. requires horrific destruction
3. Can be good for the long term of the country.
Let’s not forget IRGC has a long list of atrocities and oppression to their name. Yes… yes… you might say the same of USA, but it is categorically different.
It isn't different. Much of Iran's conflicts can at least be seen as reactive. The USA and Israel love invading countries unprovoked and on naked lies. Their kill count in illegal and immoral wars far exceeds anyone else. If we want to go that route, just don't, because by that token the entirety of South America must nuke the USA several hundred times.
Israel in any case isn't much better. Random Mileikowskis and Androvich's claiming ancient levantine connections and killing and stealing land over this nonsense.
Invading a country unprovoked, launching missiles at schoolgirls is invasion, murder and warcrimes. We don't typically use the word murder for state actors, but letting them use this as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.
You keep saying unprovoked. How is attacking Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and drones (mostly by proxy) not a provocation? How many attacks do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?
Article 51 applies to states, not continents, but sure some states might have a claim against the US. That doesn’t change anything about the Iran regime’s aggression.
But you brought it up. Nicaragua if we are following the laws of proportionality established by America and Israel in this invasion, Nicaragua alone has the right to level most of the unuted states, and to say nothing of the claims of other south american and middle eastern countries. So personally I'd rather not use the proxy argument unless one is comfortable with the idea of the USA having multiple nukes lobbed at it from all over the world.
Iran presently also isn't trying to Lebensraum "buffer zones" from other countries lands around itself.
Okay, let's imagine that Nicaragua has the right to nuke the US, setting aside the fact that their self-defense justification expired decades ago, and that someone else committing war crimes does not create any legal justification for other war crimes.
I'm still not sure what this has to do with Iranian aggression?
Israel and America are the ones who directly invaded Iran during "negotiations". If you want to get at proxies, then again as I said, I would support arming Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc with nukes and having them launch them at the USA. If not, then Israel and USA attacked first, Iran hasn't been directly attacking them during this time.
If we correct your argument so it's actually based on international law, it seems to boil down to "we have to ignore proxy warfare, otherwise Nicaragua might have historically (several decades ago) had a right to attack US military assets." That hardly seems like a reason to deny reality and ignore proxy warfare.
I don't care about hypotheticals, there is already a hyper violent belligerent country in the middle east with a few hundred "illegal" nukes. Their officials/thinkers have already stated insane things about using the nukes on eg innocent European capitals without anyone doing counter clarification or pushback. I'd worry much more about the nukes and fissile materials there.
I think the domino effects of Iran getting nukes would probably be the least worst option. It would cool down Israeli mindless invasions, force the Gulf countries to build their own nukes and stabilize the middle east.
What is the non machine part? What do you believe exists other than chemical and electrical systems?
Edit: If you mean machine in a more colloquial sense that's fine. Let us first get clear if we mean machine in that sense or in sense of any physical mechanism.
If the question is what is there about us that's not covered by the body, we can mention things like: feelings, intentions, perceptions, acts of consciousness.
Or however else you want to divide up things that have to do with the mind.
Eliminativists/illusionists may completely deny such things. The rest can fall into many camps, some of them religious.
It's not like there are any surprising new parts. It's about how one chooses to interpret/conceive those we are familiar with.
And what part remains in that space after we have mapped all the brain signals and configurations corresponding to these feelings, intentions and perceptions? I don't feel the need to bring up absurd unproven concepts without waiting for more data. It'd be like me saying there is something aphysical behind Mercury's orbital perturbations if I were born before SR and GR were discovered (as an example). No point in jumping to such an argument without first exhausting more believable causes first. History is very strongly against any kind of bet in the aphysical.
My question to you would be, what do you think remains that's not a simple natural system if/after something like Neuralink is successfully established?
Forgive me if I ramble for too long. I've been seeing a lot of comments in this vein and the thoughts have accumulated.
Tacit in your question is the notion that the inquiries that are important are those that can result in predictive models of phenomena encountered in the world — hence feelings, intentions & perceptions turn into a shorthand for reported accounts of the same — and that given enough reports (data), we could build a dictionary that maps a bundle of reports to a(n equivalence class) of physical system(s).
But when we speak of having feelings, or acting on intentions, most often we are not using these as stand-ins for our failure to pin down the current state of our physical system to another. If I am exposed to fire, I want to get away — I am unconcerned with how well I could translate my report of the pain to a patterns of neural activations. The reality of pain for me is unaffected by the fidelity of my "experience report dictionary". And it is there whether it's a brush fire or a neuralink streaming fire bits to my cortex.
If you decide that primacy ought to always be given to things as they can be modeled, you can choose to elevate the "experience report dictionary" and make the reality of experience a second-class citizen. Then you end up with an eliminativist ontology where indeed, we can rightly be called a mechanism.
But that is a "world-making" decision, a value judgement: "this is how things should be seen". It might be sponsored by our recent history, where we got high on the fruits of applied scientific modelling, nursed by the education which taught us that being a good engineer can have us continue in line with that, and pushed on us by impoverished modern eschatologies promising eternal youth, experience machines and what-not at this point. And it might seem preferable or more dependable than whatever equally impoverished, inhumane eschatologies we may have been presented with before.
It doesn't mean there isn't a whole world of places where we can go instead. But in general, we don't change our value judgements until the current one seems inadequate for some reason.
> If we created a molecule by molecule synthesis of a human being, you'd agree it is conscious and the same thing as a human created via typical reproduction, right?
Yes so that was my point, if we can agree that a molecular synthesis of a human being, being a pure naturalistic physical process is as good as any other human then if we assume some aphysical element to consciousness, then we have a purely physical process for achieving a system with aphysicality in it. Which means either its not in fact aphysical or then what, we are left with the quetion at what point during this assembly process this new special aspect arises.
It's my feeling that we are still getting too ahead of ourselves in judging some supernatural element, that it's much like the atomism question in ancient greece. An honest thinker back then could have no really firm reason to support one side over another and they tended toward thesse kinds of endless circular metaphysical discussions. That is until we had further data and observation tools which settled the question experimentally. Juat like certain aspects of consciousness, atomism felt an insolvable question in some ways back then. I feel the problems we will have with consciousness will eventually have a similar fate. This bet has always succeeded for millenia till now.
Eternal youth and experience machines don't seem like problems with any conceptual difficulties. We already know electrical and chemical signals change what the brain perceives and eger6nal youth is no more difficult a concept than making any other form of long lasting machine. Obviously there is a long sequence of research problems to solve in the line but none of it is conceptually impossible or blockaged.
Another different question to help me understand what you think of this. I think you agree with me, but just to clarify. A human being is independent of the process of creation right? If we created a molecule by molecule synthesis of a human being, you'd agree it is conscious and the same thing as a human created via typical reproduction, right?
Purely historically too of course the USA and Israel are rhe last people whose words I'd trust about wanting to bring "freedom" to a country. The only thing they are experts at are toppling democracies and installing dictators, including in Iran itself.
reply