Auto-translated
Many people may have the same opinions at certain moments.
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
<garkin>
Posts from philosophy
<garkin>
Inquisitor
Auto-translated
Why? If it benefits people to reach a consensus, they will do so. But it's clear that each person is an individual – without a doubt.
Alliance of Light — лидер клана (список кланов на HW) :)
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
<garkin>
Auto-translated
Why? If it benefits people to come to a common understanding, they will do so. But it is clear that each person is an individual – without a doubt.
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
Inquisitor
Auto-translated
There are mandatory agreements and there are free agreements. In a free agreement, each party believes that the deal is beneficial to them; otherwise, free agreements would hardly be concluded.
Alliance of Light — лидер клана (список кланов на HW) :)
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
<garkin>
Auto-translated
There are mandatory agreements and there are free agreements. In a free agreement, each party believes that the deal is beneficial to them; otherwise, free agreements would hardly be concluded.
Secondly, an agreement is already a compromise in itself...
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
Inquisitor
Auto-translated
Firstly, an agreement (strictly legally speaking) cannot be compulsory.
There are agreements that are conditionally compulsory. This is a disguised compulsory agreement, where one party sets conditions that cannot be refused. As a rule, these are agreements of a criminal nature. Strictly legally, an agreement must always satisfy the opinions of all parties.
Alliance of Light — лидер клана (список кланов на HW) :)
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ! — сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
<garkin>
Auto-translated
There are agreements that are seemingly voluntary but are actually coercive. This is a disguised coercive agreement where one party sets conditions that cannot be refused.
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
Compromise is an ideal. No one has ever achieved it, and no one ever will. But striving for it is possible, the only question is, why? Life is more interesting with a variety of opinions.
Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
Draco_Lich
Auto-translated
I wonder how history textbooks are written in Germany?
Страшней драколича зверя нет!
Жаль, не лебедь я...
Сандро (не)жив! :D :D :D
Влюбившийся дурак на глупости горазд (с)
В сказке грусти синей я один, как бог... (с)
Жаль, не лебедь я...
Сандро (не)жив! :D :D :D
Влюбившийся дурак на глупости горазд (с)
В сказке грусти синей я один, как бог... (с)
<garkin>
Auto-translated
I wonder how history textbooks are written in Germany?
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
Saruman
Auto-translated
To Skif and Alexey:
I wasn't justifying Nikolai; I'm simply saying that he was purely a military man, incapable of leading the country, especially during such difficult times. It was Minister Plehve who actually started the war by pressuring the Tsar and convincing him to do it—this happened often and still happens; after all, that is what ministers are for (in the sense of advising, but advising correctly). As for Bloody Sunday, it's not a fact that he knew who was coming toward him; he was simply told that a crowd was moving toward the palace. I'm not saying he was good—he was incompetent, but nothing more.
Regarding Stalin, I have said before that he made a significant contribution to history; despite the repressions, perhaps it is precisely because of him that the war was won.
And as for the topic of conversation, I simply supported the theme regarding the beginning of the 20th century (actually, it's my least favorite historical period)
I wasn't justifying Nikolai; I'm simply saying that he was purely a military man, incapable of leading the country, especially during such difficult times. It was Minister Plehve who actually started the war by pressuring the Tsar and convincing him to do it—this happened often and still happens; after all, that is what ministers are for (in the sense of advising, but advising correctly). As for Bloody Sunday, it's not a fact that he knew who was coming toward him; he was simply told that a crowd was moving toward the palace. I'm not saying he was good—he was incompetent, but nothing more.
Regarding Stalin, I have said before that he made a significant contribution to history; despite the repressions, perhaps it is precisely because of him that the war was won.
And as for the topic of conversation, I simply supported the theme regarding the beginning of the 20th century (actually, it's my least favorite historical period)
Draco_Lich
Auto-translated
I don't know about the textbooks... but you're right about the camps - Auschwitz is the same as Освенцим, just earlier... but I was misinformed by third parties... by the way, Poles still call it Auschwitz...
City? Or camp? Освенцим is "Oswecim" *Polish keyboard isn't working, darn it*.
Страшней драколича зверя нет!
Жаль, не лебедь я...
Сандро (не)жив! :D :D :D
Влюбившийся дурак на глупости горазд (с)
В сказке грусти синей я один, как бог... (с)
Жаль, не лебедь я...
Сандро (не)жив! :D :D :D
Влюбившийся дурак на глупости горазд (с)
В сказке грусти синей я один, как бог... (с)
<garkin>
Auto-translated
A city? Or a camp? It was "Oswiecim" – a camp founded near the city. I'm not entirely sure about the details...
Плоды размышлений были съедены червями сомнения...
Слоныш
Auto-translated
I wasn't defending Nicholas; I'm just saying that he was simply a military man, incapable of leading a country, especially during such a difficult time. The war was initiated by Minister Plehve, who pressured the Tsar and convinced him to start it. This happened often and still happens; after all, that's what ministers are for (in the sense of advising, but advising correctly). As for the Resurrection, it's not certain that he knew who was coming to him; he was simply informed that a crowd was moving towards the palace. I'm not saying he was a good person; he was incompetent, but not more than that.
So, it turns out that all the decisions were made by his less intellectually challenged advisors, and they also misinformed him about the Resurrection... but he still made the decision to order the shooting?!
In general, two questions arise: firstly, why, if he was such a worthless and pathetic person, doesn't he just stay quietly on the sidelines, and instead manages to make the situation even worse (because his vacillations with Rasputin and the lawlessness that the latter perpetrated are entirely Nicholas's responsibility; they truly found each other, two damaged individuals)? And secondly, why does Russia even need this creature with the proud title of emperor?
In my opinion, the Bolsheviks answered these questions correctly...
P.S. By the way, why are you only talking about the Resurrection? What about Khodynka? That was no "misunderstanding"; it was simply criminal negligence.
Saruman
Auto-translated
In both cases, there was criminal negligence, and no one disputes that. It's not a given who made the decision to order the shooting. He didn't stay quietly on the sidelines because he was, after all, the Tsar; who would forbid him? And he had an active personality... His main problem was that he didn't put the right people in the right positions. There have been such Tsars before, but in those cases, they either had little influence on the situation (favorites, the guard, ministers managed things for them), or the overall situation in the country wasn't so dire, so it wasn't as noticeable.