Another poster said that adults shold be allowed to do “whatever”.

I asked if this “whatever” includes many things that are currently illegal, even if everyone involved consent to it.

You then told me to ask that question again after serving in the military, and i then told you that I already have served. Then you wrote a long anecdote that I honestly missed the point of.

You telling me that’s justified?

No, I’m not, and I’m not sure why you think I am.

I’ve already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I’m not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.

But the point is that just because you are old enough to vote, doesn’t mean you are necessarily mature enough to make certain decisions.

One could well argue that if the reason we are not allowed to heroin is related to health, or crimes due to addiction, then an 18 yo should not be allowed to use it, but a 90 year old would. I would even argue that we might want to allow hard drugs to 80 year olds, who probably can take responsibility by then.

you are old enough to drink, own a gun and whatever else

Does that include e.g. doing hard drugs? Are you also allowed to e.g sell hard drugs, or e.g. potentially harmful products, such as power tools without certain currently legally mandated safety features if the buyer is an adult? Are you allowed to sign away certain rights that you are currently not allowed to sign away, e.g. should an adult be allowed to sign themselves over to slavery without the possibility to undo it?

What is that based on, though? Why a single age for everything, when it might make sense to have it more “targeted”. For example, wouldn’t it make sense to allow voting in local elections, where things are usually simpler and cause and effect clearer, at a younger age?

Similarly, why tie drinking regulations, which are based on physiology, to voting age, which has nothing to do with it? You may say it’s because if the person is mature enough to vote they can decide themselves, but there is a huge amount of things I’m not allowed to buy or consume even if I’m allowed to vote, so that argument doesn’t hold (unless you advocate 100% liberalization of everything).

Having just a single age limit just makes it all seem very arbitrary, which it shouldn’t be.

How many nuclear-capable countries have been invaded since WW2?

in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.

If this war has thought us anything, it’s that you can do whatever you want, as long as you have nukes. I have a feeling that is a much more dangerous result, than what a minor escalation may cause.

Why are you bringing up westeners at all, as if that somehow strengthens the point? It reveals your inner biases. “The opinions of the south is not enough, I have to bring in westeners to give my argument some weight”.

Sometimes peple reveal more than they intended when they write.

Their majority opinion aligns with Russia.

You keep repeating that, but the data does not support it.

What educated westerners think matches what people living outside the west think.

Wow, just wow. So we don’t actually need to ask e.g indiginous people of their opinions, it’s enough to ask “educated westeners”. Which century are we living in?

It’s pretty obvious from all the actions the global majority countries have taken that they do in fact support Russia

Is that why they keep codemning Russia in various UN resolutions? The numbers speak for themselves.

It does’t matter if educated westeners think Russia is right: that’s not what’s being discussed. Unless you think the opinions of white westeners like Chomsky override the actual position of poorer countries? “Oh, Chomsky agrees with Russia? Sorry Botswana, you have to also support Russia now, Chomsky said so. Better fire your UN ambassador, they forgot to ask Chomsky what he thought, before voting to condemn Russia”.

I haven’t heard anything so patronizing and colonoalistic in a long time.

If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. M

I’m not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don’t support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.

The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.

Ah, you define support as “not actively opposed”? That is an incredibly low bar.

Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don’t support Russia or think what the country does is right.

The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.

You claimed:

It took 8 years of ethnic cleansing in Dinbas before Russia intervened in Ukraine.

Russia intervened in Ukraine in 2014. 2014 - 8 = 2008, so ethnic cleansing must have happened between 2008 and 2014 according to you.

Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.

Your links actualy don’t show that the “vast majority” spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don’t. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.

8 years? Ethnic cleansing in Donbas started in 2008? Do you have some source for that? I don’t remember even Russia claiming such a thing. Why did Russia support Yanukovych if he did such things?

There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html

Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.