Does Vladimir Putin exist?

but just know your time could be better spent elsewhere.

We are all on the Flat Earth forums, I think we know we are not contributing much to human progress.

Still, thanks for the info, I'm pretty intrigued by the "prisons don't exist" thing though - is this something to do with linguistics as well?

We are all on the Flat Earth forums, I think we know we are not contributing much to human progress.

To be fair, you can still learn a few things here and there, especially given how a lot of users come from a variety of backgrounds. But with FlatAssembler, you're more likely to lose brain cells in the process; Participating in any other part of this forum would still be more productive than responding to Assembler (although maybe not as entertaining).

Still, thanks for the info, I'm pretty intrigued by the "prisons don't exist" thing though - is this something to do with linguistics as well?

I don't think so (even though I could see him using that to help substantiate his position), if I'm not mistaken I think he says they can't exist because he doesn't understand why people think they're a good idea.

I don't want to get too much into it, don't wanna derail, but I'm sure he'll love to tell you all about it.

Participating in any other part of this forum would still be more productive than responding to Assembler (although maybe not as entertaining).

You clearly haven't read some of the other threads here. He's got some stiff competition.

Quote from: arthurmarston1899 on September 04, 2020, 08:41:39 AM

Participating in any other part of this forum would still be more productive than responding to Assembler (although maybe not as entertaining).

You clearly haven't read some of the other threads here. He's got some stiff competition.

I'm willing to bet Assembler is up there though. What other things has he posted here? Did he tell you about his position on murder?

FlatAssembler has posted many weird threads here at the FES, and identical threads on other forums. Anyway, you should stick around.

FlatAssembler has posted many weird threads here at the FES, and identical threads on other forums. Anyway, you should stick around.

I may stick around, though I'll mostly just lurk if I do. I just wanted to pop in to let you all know about Mr. FlatAssembler. I'm not sure which forums you saw his posts on, but I've noticed he's posted his Vukovar thread on several.

 

He's been here for about 4 years now.

This is the forum he took his name from https://board.flatassembler.net/index.php

This thread is one of his first FES obsessions https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70713.0

Since he thinks he knows linguistics

What do you mean "thinks he knows"? I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics. I have a very good reason to think I know linguistics. Not all of linguistics, of course (nobody knows all of linguistics), but enough to understand the basic principles of social sciences.

I'm pretty intrigued by the "prisons don't exist" thing though

Well, think of it this way: for prisons to exist, people on power have to think it's a good thing that prisons exist. But how can a rational person think that? A prison is not a place in which an insane person, who has murdered (or something like that) because of his or her insanity, will become sane, it's a place from which he or she will return with even more psychological problems (which made them a criminal in the first place). Obviously, a rational person can't believe prisons are a good thing. Also, people on power need to be rational enough to get on power. Would you know how to become a successful politician in the country you live in? I wouldn't. But even I understand how the society works well enough to understand prisons shouldn't exist. Therefore, prisons probably don't exist. They are very hard to explain from the perspective of social sciences.

is this something to do with linguistics

Well, not much. But, yeah, the basic principle of social sciences (including linguistics) is that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational, because irrationality of individuals tends to cancel each other out. Prisons clearly contradict that principle.

I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics.

Prove it.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 05, 2020, 03:58:14 AM

I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics.

Prove it.

Well, here is the abstract of one of the papers I published: https://flatassembler.github.io/Baranja.jpg

What do you mean "thinks he knows"? I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics. I have a very good reason to think I know linguistics. Not all of linguistics, of course (nobody knows all of linguistics), but enough to understand the basic principles of social sciences.

People on other forums have explained to you how it's easy to publish, and also given your location, publishing papers (especially in the social-sciences) is even easier, and means very little.

And you're also falling for the Dunning-Kruger effect; As far as I can tell, you haven't even finished University yet. I'll consider that you 'know linguistics' if you have at least a Bachelor's degree in the subject. As it stands, no one should take you as a significant authority on this subject.

Well, think of it this way: for prisons to exist, people on power have to think it's a good thing that prisons exist. But how can a rational person think that?

I thought you were an anarchist? You think governments act rationally 100% of the time? I don't think anyone would agree with that.

Don't you think murder should be legal? Going by your logic, you should assume laws against murder don't exist.

I'm sure Hitler and other Nazi officers thought the Holocaust was a good idea too. Or are you going to deny that now as well?

A prison is not a place in which an insane person, who has murdered (or something like that) because of his or her insanity, will become sane, it's a place from which he or she will return with even more psychological problems (which made them a criminal in the first place).

Someone on another forum has already explained to you that most people who murder are not mentally ill. According to this study, only about 5% of murderers in the US have some history of mental illness: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

There are some bungles, but more often than not insane people who murder are found innocent on the grounds on insanity and are put into mental hospitals.

 

Obviously, a rational person can't believe prisons are a good thing.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Obviously, a rational person can't believe-
that the Holocaust was a good thing.
that Lysenkoism was a good thing.
that Slavery was a good thing.

Does that stop them from being true?
Aren't you also a vegetarian? You are aware about what goes on in slaughterhouses, right? You don't consider that very rational do you?

 

Also, people on power need to be rational enough to get on power. Would you know how to become a successful politician in the country you live in? I wouldn't.

That isn't about being rational. Many politicians aren't very rational either. Even granting your statement (which is dubious in and of itself), it's being *just* rational enough. You could still be quite irrational.

 

But even I understand how the society works well enough to understand prisons shouldn't exist. Therefore, prisons probably don't exist. They are very hard to explain from the perspective of social sciences.

I don't think anyone argues that prisons shouldn't exist; Many argue that they should be reformed to focus less on punishment.

 

Well, not much. But, yeah, the basic principle of social sciences (including linguistics) is that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational, because irrationality of individuals tends to cancel each other out. Prisons clearly contradict that principle.

Where did you hear that from? Or did you come to that conclusion yourself?

Either way, it's wrong. Do you really not think people like psychologists consider cognitive biases?

BTW, this thread is starting to get derailed, if a mod thinks so too, can he or she split it into another thread?

His threads always get derailed because he tosses the bait out and people gobble it up.

His threads always get derailed because he tosses the bait out and people gobble it up.

That isn't too uncommon with him, I've seen it happen many times on other forums.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 05, 2020, 04:00:48 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 05, 2020, 03:58:14 AM

I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics.

Prove it.

Well, here is the abstract of one of the papers I published: https://flatassembler.github.io/Baranja.jpg

Can you link to the actual paper (in English, if possible) on the site that published it?

People on other forums have explained to you how it's easy to publish

Have you tried it? I am certain I wouldn't succeed at publishing those papers if I hadn't studied the subject for years.

You think governments act rationally 100% of the time?

Generally, they are rational but have incomplete information (due to the Economic Calculation problem).

I'm sure Hitler and other Nazi officers thought the Holocaust was a good idea too. Or are you going to deny that now as well?

No. In the case of Holocaust, irrationality of the individuals who are willing to kill people of other nations can't be canceled out by irrationality of other people, so this doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social science. The basic principle of social science applies to economics and political decision making, where irrationality of some individuals can cancel out the irrationality of other individuals. And, obviously, the vast majority of social scientists believe in the Holocaust (so much so that it's illegal to deny the Holocaust), so I am not going to deny it.

Someone on another forum has already explained to you that most people who murder are not mentally ill.

Most? Well, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, with a burden of proof I am quite sure you can't meet.

that Lysenkoism was a good thing.

A rational person can believe in Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism doesn't appear to be logically inconsistent (making it impossible for a rational person to believe in it), it's just inconsistent with the empirical evidence.

Aren't you also a vegetarian?

Mostly. I eat fish from time to time. Fish is rather different from other meat, most arguments for vegetarianism don't apply to them. Most neuroscientists agree fish don't feel pain. And fish contains little saturated fat and basically no heme iron, which makes meat unhealthy. Environmental vegetarianism also doesn't really apply to fish, since fish aren't given antibiotics.

You are aware about what goes on in slaughterhouses, right? You don't consider that very rational do you?

Well, that doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social sciences. There is no way for the irrationality of some farmers who mistreat animals to be canceled out by irrationality of farmers who treat animals exceedingly well.

That isn't about being rational. Many politicians aren't very rational either.

Well, then, how do you explain why politicians exist? By the Marxist theory of society (which nearly no social scientist of today accepts)?

Where did you hear that from?

And many other places.

Can you link to the actual paper (in English, if possible) on the site that published it?

As far as I know, they don't have a website.

Have you tried it? I am certain I wouldn't succeed at publishing those papers if I hadn't studied the subject for years.

I have (after doing research at my university), and know a few people who have published papers of their own. Wasn't that hard really. I can't imagine how easy it must be where you're from.

Generally, they are rational but have incomplete information (due to the Economic Calculation problem).

Governments are rational? Really?


Governments more often than not rely on ideology rather than evidence.

No. In the case of Holocaust, irrationality of the individuals who are willing to kill people of other nations can't be canceled out by irrationality of other people, so this doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social science.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'll get to the 'basic principle of social science' now; 'Rationality' in economics takes on a different meaning than in colloquial usage, something you obviously fail to understand.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/reading-rationality-and-self-interest/#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20economics,in%20the%20face%20of%20scarcity.&text=Economists%20assume%20that%20people%20will,in%20their%20own%20self%2Dinterest.

The basic principle of social science applies to economics and political decision making, where irrationality of some individuals can cancel out the irrationality of other individuals. And, obviously, the vast majority of social scientists believe in the Holocaust (so much so that it's illegal to deny the Holocaust), so I am not going to deny it.

Do the vast majority of social scientists deny the existence of prisons or agree with you that murder should be legal?

Most? Well, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, with a burden of proof I am quite sure you can't meet.

...I posted a link, idiot, one you conveniently edited out.
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

A rational person can believe in Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism doesn't appear to be logically inconsistent (making it impossible for a rational person to believe in it), it's just inconsistent with the empirical evidence.

Was the government rational in believing it? It was supported due to ideology, not evidence. Doesn't sound very rational to me.

Mostly. I eat fish from time to time. Fish is rather different from other meat, most arguments for vegetarianism don't apply to them. Most neuroscientists agree fish don't feel pain.

Wow, do you just forget all of the debates you've had? Or are you expecting for me not to know?
https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5208&p=43927

TL:DR Fish very likely feel pain.

And fish contains little saturated fat and basically no heme iron, which makes meat unhealthy. Environmental vegetarianism also doesn't really apply to fish, since fish aren't given antibiotics.

Antibiotics isn't the only environmental argument for veganism.

Well, that doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social sciences.

You seem to arbitrarily draw the line on this issue whenever it suits you.

There is no way for the irrationality of some farmers who mistreat animals to be canceled out by irrationality of farmers who treat animals exceedingly well.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, then, how do you explain why politicians exist? By the Marxist theory of society (which nearly no social scientist of today accepts)?

Politicians each have their own motives. Rationality has little to do with it for many of them.

And many other places.

Again, you misunderstood the context. They're talking about rationality from an *economic* perspective. Either way, you have no idea what you're talking about when you use the terms (No one should take you as an authority on anything. I'm sure if you are to ask a professional about it they'd say you've got it all wrong).

Plus, the video was just in regards to economics, not social sciences as a whole.

I'm done here. I've already wasted far too much of my time. Anyone wanna take this guy on feel free.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals

One paper, published in a journal called Sex Roles, said that the author had conducted a two-year study involving “thematic analysis of table dialogue” to uncover the mystery of why heterosexual men like to eat at Hooters.

Another, from a journal of feminist geography, parsed “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks in Portland, Ore., while a third paper, published in a journal of feminist social work and titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” simply scattered some up-to-date jargon into passages lifted from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

It's not that difficult to have garbage peer reviewed papers.

Quote from: arthurmarston1899

People on other forums have explained to you how it's easy to publish

Have you tried it? I am certain I wouldn't succeed at publishing those papers if I hadn't studied the subject for years.

There are some "journals" that will publish literally anything, for the right fee.
https://www.sciencealert.com/two-scientific-journals-have-accepted-a-study-by-maggie-simpson-and-edna-krabappel

I have (after doing research at my university), and know a few people who have published papers of their own. Wasn't that hard really. I can't imagine how easy it must be where you're from.

Well, I have also published a paper about computer science this year. I have only managed to do that after months of re-editing, and, as far as I know, nobody in my class has even tried to do that. Can you share an abstract of some paper you published?
From my perspective, you are some guy who devalues my work without even trying to understanding it. You seem to imply most linguistic journals are just mills that will publish anything, and that is incredibly insulting. Many of the papers I've written didn't pass the peer review, and those that did, did so only after weeks or months of re-editing. That's incredibly frustrating, you get the idea that linguistics is too rigorous (and not letting some good ideas to get expressed), rather than not rigorous enough. And when you are devaluing my work without even trying to understand it, you sound silly and insulting. Not to mention that's obviously not the way science works. Since you are present on the philosophicalvegan forum, do you know when Sunflowers claimed quantum mechanics was nonsense without even trying to understand it? You sound kind of like that.

Governments are rational? Really?

I am not sure what most social scientists think about anarchism, but I am certain questioning whether governments are rational is unscientific.

'Rationality' in economics takes on a different meaning than in colloquial usage, something you obviously fail to understand

Hmmm... I don't think "rationality" in social sciences means "considering one's own self-interest". Democracy relies on that not being the case (on people considering the best interest of the society, rather than their own self-interest), yet most of the social scientists seem to agree democratic governments are better than autocratic ones. That's what Bryan Caplan tries to refute in "Myth of the Rational Voter". But, for most cases, it doesn't matter. In most cases, what's good for you is also good for the society as a whole.

Do the vast majority of social scientists deny the existence of prisons or agree with you that murder should be legal?

I don't know.

I posted a link, idiot, one you conveniently edited out.

Why would that be a reliable source?

It was supported due to ideology, not evidence.

Or, because they rationally (though wrongly) thought they had overwhelming evidence (experiments "showing" rye changes to wheat in certain conditions...).

Wow, do you just forget all of the debates you've had? Or are you expecting for me not to know?

I've expected you not to know that. Who are you? Red? Zzzzzz? NonZeroSum?
In that discussion, brimstoneSalad was rejecting the obvious scientific consensus that some mammals, such as naked mole rats, don't feel pain. So why take seriously anything else he or she says on the topic?

Antibiotics isn't the only environmental argument for veganism.

They are the only one that makes sense even after you do some research.

You seem to arbitrarily draw the line on this issue whenever it suits you.

No, I am not.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Which word?

They're talking about rationality from an *economic* perspective.

Why would it be different in other social sciences?

So, FA, why won't you give us the actual links to your "published" papers?

So, FA, why won't you give us the actual links to your "published" papers?

Because, as far as I know, they aren't available on the Internet. And me uploading them to the Internet right now, without the permission of the publishers, is an obvious violation of the copyright laws. I've uploaded a version of my computer science paper before I submitted it to the journal (I reedited it since), so I linked to it here. The final version of my computer science paper should be available on-line in a few weeks or months.

Because, as far as I know, they aren't available on the Internet.

Of course, a journal with no internet presence.     Presumably the journals are written using quill and ink pots then are distributed by men on horseback?

OK, why don't you just tell us the name of the journal and the article reference so we can find it ourselves.

I'm guessing you are dancing around as either

a)  You've not had anything published.
b) It was in pay to play journal, and therefore meaningless.

Which is it?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 06, 2020, 03:08:47 AM

Because, as far as I know, they aren't available on the Internet.

Of course, a journal with no internet presence.     Presumably the journals are written using quill and ink pots then are distributed by men on horseback?

OK, why don't you just tell us the name of the journal and the article reference so we can find it ourselves.

I'm guessing you are dancing around as either

a)  You've not had anything published.
b) It was in pay to play journal, and therefore meaningless.

Which is it?

As I just found out, it's actually available on the Internet, here on page 70.
And, no, it's not a pay-to-publish journal, and they don't publish just about anything. They requested me to re-edit it multiple times before (it took me months) before they agreed to publish it.

Back on topic.  Are you satisfied that Vladimir Putin exists or are you still hung up on the etymology of his name?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 08:01:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

Quote from: https://nameberry.com/babyname/Vladimir

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

Have some better source? This one is obviously unreliable, "Vladimir" definitely doesn't mean "renowned prince", the Russian word for "prince" is князь ("kniazy", from the same root as English "king") or принц ("prints", from Latin "princeps").

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 08:12:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 08:01:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

Quote from: https://nameberry.com/babyname/Vladimir

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

Have some better source? This one is obviously unreliable, "Vladimir" definitely doesn't mean "renowned prince", the Russian word for "prince" is князь ("kniazy", from the same root as English "king") or принц ("prints", from Latin "princeps").

Is this wrong?

Gender Masculine
Usage Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovene, Medieval Slavic [1]
Scripts Владимир(Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian)
Pronounced vlu-DYEE-myir(Russian) VLA-dee-meer(Serbian, Croatian)  [key · IPA]
Meaning & History
Derived from the Slavic element vladeti "rule" combined with meru "great, famous". The second element has also been associated with miru meaning "peace, world". This was the name of an 11th-century grand prince of Kiev who is venerated as a saint because of his efforts to Christianize his realm (Kievan Rus). It was also borne by the founder of the former Soviet state, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 06, 2020, 12:02:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 08:12:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 08:01:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

Quote from: https://nameberry.com/babyname/Vladimir

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

Have some better source? This one is obviously unreliable, "Vladimir" definitely doesn't mean "renowned prince", the Russian word for "prince" is князь ("kniazy", from the same root as English "king") or принц ("prints", from Latin "princeps").

Is this wrong?

Gender Masculine
Usage Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovene, Medieval Slavic [1]
Scripts Владимир(Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian)
Pronounced vlu-DYEE-myir(Russian) VLA-dee-meer(Serbian, Croatian)  [key · IPA]
Meaning & History
Derived from the Slavic element vladeti "rule" combined with meru "great, famous". The second element has also been associated with miru meaning "peace, world". This was the name of an 11th-century grand prince of Kiev who is venerated as a saint because of his efforts to Christianize his realm (Kievan Rus). It was also borne by the founder of the former Soviet state, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

I suppose most of that is correct. But "Lenin" is generally accepted not to be Lenin's real name, so why assume "Vladimir" is?

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 08:12:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 08:01:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

Quote from: https://nameberry.com/babyname/Vladimir

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

Have some better source? This one is obviously unreliable, "Vladimir" definitely doesn't mean "renowned prince", the Russian word for "prince" is князь ("kniazy", from the same root as English "king") or принц ("prints", from Latin "princeps").

Regardless of the origin or meaning of the name, the name Vladimir Putin is used to identify the current leader of Russia.  I don't understand what you're confused about.

Quote from: Stash on September 06, 2020, 01:10:04 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 06, 2020, 12:02:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 08:12:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 08:01:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

Quote from: https://nameberry.com/babyname/Vladimir

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

Have some better source? This one is obviously unreliable, "Vladimir" definitely doesn't mean "renowned prince", the Russian word for "prince" is князь ("kniazy", from the same root as English "king") or принц ("prints", from Latin "princeps").

Is this wrong?

Gender Masculine
Usage Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovene, Medieval Slavic [1]
Scripts Владимир(Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian)
Pronounced vlu-DYEE-myir(Russian) VLA-dee-meer(Serbian, Croatian)  [key · IPA]
Meaning & History
Derived from the Slavic element vladeti "rule" combined with meru "great, famous". The second element has also been associated with miru meaning "peace, world". This was the name of an 11th-century grand prince of Kiev who is venerated as a saint because of his efforts to Christianize his realm (Kievan Rus). It was also borne by the founder of the former Soviet state, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

I suppose most of that is correct. But "Lenin" is generally accepted not to be Lenin's real name, so why assume "Vladimir" is?

I'm wildly confused too. What does the etymology of a name have to do with whether the human with that name exists or not, in present time?

Are you saying the human Putin doesn't exist because of some sort of notion around where his fist name comes from centuries ago? How does that make sense? What is your point exactly?