Attention and entertainment. And, seeing how she hasn't really said anything too evil or triggering, I don't really mind (she's also just 18, lol). She's even made me giggle a couple of times. 🤷
He was raised in the streets and used to sell drugs, which is why he ended up in jail for 7 years. To this day, he doesn't know his mom or dad. The man had no support. Fair enough, "morality is a skill" as in the more you choose right over wrong, the easier it gets, it becomes a part of your identity you're proud of, but I don't think it requires resources the way you see it. Also, people can be and have been self-sacrificial, even in the absence of resources. The poorest people are the ones that give more to charity, there's more union and prosociality in Gaza amongst the bombs than in any American neighborhood... Idk man, I'm not buying this. I think that it's a variable that can affect your decision making, especially if your moral framework is flimsy, but not the main variable behind moral decision making.
Do you consider Ukraine not a part of NATO/aligned with the West de facto? If not since they got couped, by now? What does that even mean and how would it have changed things? America wanted to "'contain" Russia, and for it it used Ukraine, and here we are. The rest is wind.
This is close to the "if people were educated they wouldn't be evil" fallacy, as if people like Henry Kissinger didn't exist, lol.
No, as Hume brilliantly pointed out: shoulds and ares are fundamentally disconnected. You can be extremely smart and knowledgeable about the world and still conduct yourself viciously (at times, monstrously so). What's the name of that physically disabled physicist that cheated on his wife and was just chilling with/close to Epstein?
Anyway, sticking more to the topic at hand: the only real difference between a moral person and a monster is that the former 1) believes that, for every occasion and decision, some acts are visibly, objectively more moral than others; 2) believes they should always privilege righteousness before vice, and do the moral thing. That's it. One of my closest male friends is literally illiterate and he's an excellent dad who chooses virtue regularly, my dad was a lawyer and that didn't stop him from being abusive to his family and from cheating on his wife, lol.
So no, stop it, that's not how it works. Good people are good because they decide to be good (which is easy to see, you don't need degrees, you don't even need to know how to read or write!), every day, and even when they slip they still know that they DID slip, they don't just rationalize their mistake as something virtuous (because they believe in objective morality and etc etc.).
We would if we could, as we have historically done. But, hey, if a thief gets his hands cut and can never steal again, that still means he's less damaging for the world (whether he wanted it or not). Let's focus on Burgerland, since the UK and some (most?) European countries are just sidekicks without much individual power to coerce the world. I highly doubt that the French or British empire will rise again, you know?
That's not how the world works. You could've just said "the current non-Western-aligned regime is not valuable enough to salvage by other non-Western-aligned countries" or that "the cost-benefit analysis makes no sense". Just saying.
Protection from who?! We were well on the way to normalizing things with Russia since the early 00s, and then the Burgers couped Ukraine and fucked with the pipeline. China has never shown any aggression, they're the world's manufacturers so business is good for them, and countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and NK have nothing to do with Europe geopolitically speaking.
So, again, who do you think Burgerland is "protecting" us from? Nah, man, we're there with them as sidekicks when it's time to murder and pillage, and we get the scraps (well, our aristocrats, mostly).
I don't trust any American politician in a position of power (because I've seen what America does to leaders they don't like around the world...) but I'm glad he's said it, even if it's just "his brand" and he doesn't really care. Someone's got to speak some sense, for whatever reason it might be.
It's not that simple, there are other people also bribing American politicians with opposing stances/objectives (Gulf countries, for example), or else Bibi wouldn't have had to fly personally to meet with Trump and try to convince him like 6 times in the span of a year, risking arrest (for reference, I think Bibi only did it once when Biden was in office). In the end, the blame lies within America, because if the leaders were even slightly moral, or if the people cared even a little bit about politics (in general, I know many American Lemmings care), this shit wouldn't happen.
Your heart seems to be in the right place but you're largely misinformed, or taking things in a vacuum. Regardless, is it America's place to bomb yet another country, yet another group of people who haven't attacked them first, for whatever reason you might think?
No it isn't, nothing Israel does happens without American approval and support. Mossad has kompromat on Trump and that's pulling him in this or another direction, sure, but that's a different story and a new development, a circumstantial one. The moment America has a new leader that hasn't been recorded doing the nastiest of deeds by Mossad, even with AIPAC bribing many American politicians, Israel will be just one of many groups influencing American politics as it was in the recent past.
What can I expect from a bomb lover. 🤷