True Left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAXN1YYeQyA

False Leftist Cousins still does not understand that the best way to protect Iran, Venezuela, Colombia, etc. is to get the US busy in a war with EU countries first, towards which a US invasion of Greenland is the only move we have at present.

At this late stage, trying to prevent every war is futile. The best we can do is divert war away from where it would produce the worst consequences, which requires positively directing it elsewhere. (The same logic applies to why I keep saying China should invade Siberia: I am trying to protect Taiwan and Japan.)

The Russia vs Ukraine war is the best event that has happened in the 21st century so far. As a general rule, we should divert war away from the Global South and towards the Global North:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/diplomatic-decolonization/msg22279/#msg22279

(Note the accurate inclusion of Israel within the Global North in the above map. Actually, a strong case can be made for countries such as Argentina to also be included within the Global North: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/argentina/ )

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/war/

"Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?"

OK, so now both sides each accuse the other of having an unempathetic opinion. Now what?

"- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes"

Someone else says the individual will experience excitement, joy and pleasure. Now what?

"- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid"

Someone else says the room contains extreme opportunity. Now what?

"- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape."

We were inside the same room once. We were not poisoned. How come we are now outside the room?

You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?

If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes
- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid
- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape. You would only be releasing it sooner.

This is about your opinion, not mine. What would you choose and why?

"The end (non-suffering) is their clear preference"

You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

"Babies have no "choice" they can "pass to others" in the first place. Nature is already choosing on their behalf, without their consent."

If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

"Any intervention would be in violence which is already being committed"

You are arguing that, because violence was already committed by non-consensually locking the prisoner in the room, you are entitled to release the poison gas without permission from the prisoner.