I view the purpose of analysis to make decisions, not morally condemn.

What decisions matter to me in this situation that I can affect: the policies of my own country and political block.

What are those decisions:

A. Go to war on the assumption of Ukrainian just cause ... well, nearly the entire country and political block believes in Ukrainian's just cause yet we are not going to put our boots where our mouths are.

B. Send arms to Ukraine in the hopes they fight our righteous battle "for the free world" for us and win.

C. Pump arms into Ukraine, not for the purposes of option B, but to ensure an endless insurgency that bleeds the Russians at Ukraine's expense ... Wooooweee!!!!

D. Use diplomatic leverage to protect civilians as much as possible and work on a diplomatic end to the war.

[...]

So, it seems to me D is the best choice. — boethius

If Russians generally support the war, which they seem to do — boethius

What's evil is the invasion, the bombing of civilians, etc. — Olivier5

So why did you involve my post? If you want to have a different conversion, don't do so in response to my posts, it's really confusing. — Isaac

wanting a war to continue — Isaac

Why is that more unhelpful for peacemaking than the opposite framing of 'totally innocent Ukrainians bravely fighting a ruthless and hell-bent tyrant, deaf to all pleas'? — Isaac

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful. — Isaac

The senator was totally shocked that the answer wasn't no, and changed the subject to his next question (aka. damage control) — boethius

she's talking about shouldn't fall in the hands of the Russians and they're working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. — boethius

which is alarming and also just weird as to why they didn't take care of it if they knew the war was coming as US intelligence publicly claimed. — boethius

What does the EU get? — boethius

she's answering the direct question of whether there are bio-weapons in Ukraine. — boethius

it obviously will play well to the Russian supporters of the war and consolidate support for the war, which makes the war less reckless. — boethius

the classic strategy for what you propose is to feed Russia false intelligence that can be easily disproved, denied or just ignored later. — boethius

"fuck-the-EU" Nuland just wants to do what she claims and fuck the EU by orchestrating a coup with neo-Nazi's, setting those neo-Nazi's up with means and resources and then institutional legitimacy, and then setting up bio-weapons labs for this neo-Nazi cesspool as she feels that's a good way to "fuck-the-EU" which is her stated desire. — boethius

EU has gotten fucked, has it not? — boethius

But if you have a better explanation of Nuland's answer, feel free to debate that point of view on a debate forum. — boethius

As long as we are in a military strategy discussion, why didn't Russia simply do this with cruise missiles to destroy military targets?

Why not simply threaten to invade?

Is arming rebels a good strategy and does it violate the UN Charter?

Why not simply threaten to use Nukes in the first place?

Saving lives... — FreeEmotion

The above presupposes that you have a good grasp of my view. — creativesoul

So... show me. — creativesoul

False belief cannot possibly be true.
— creativesoul

Which I'm not questioning. Indeed also false statements cannot possibly be true. — neomac

...we can claim of a belief (or proposition) that is proven to be true (or false), that it could have been false (or true)... — neomac

Arriving at incoherence is a sign of self-contradiction and/or equivocation. You've littered the thread and this conversation with such things... — creativesoul

• You did not prove the immense explanatory power of your definition of belief
• You did not prove that you are not ascribing a contradictory belief in your “more accurate” belief report
• You did not prove that the knowledge requirement is necessary for accurate belief report
• You did not prove that your belief report is more accurate than the one we would normally provide in the relevant example of Jack

2 examples of inappropriate quotations:

↪creativesoul


My sentence was creatively chopped out by a deranged soul.

↪creativesoul


Taken in its context, my claim was referring to a different example from the one we are handling here, and only in order to clarify some implications of your views, not mine. (But now that you made me think about it, I would not be surprised if also on that occasion you were already committing a similar ignoratio elenchi fallacy ). — neomac

is impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood; and it is impossible to knowingly be mistaken — creativesoul

[2] "all A's can possibly be either true or false" would be a contradiction in terms if "all A's" meant "all true A's and all false A's" — neomac

its truth conditions (which you did not specify) depend on the meaning of the word “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms) not on the meaning of “belief” — neomac

Yet I have another objection. Now that you made clear that your argument is only this:
Jack was mistaken. It is impossible to knowingly be. Thus, a proper rendering of Jack's belief will come in a linguistic form that is impossible to knowingly believe.

Then your argument (as it is) is a perfect example of non sequitur, logically speaking. I'll formalise it for you:
premise 1: Jack was mistaken (p)
premise 2: It is impossible to knowingly be mistaken (q)
conclusion: a proper rendering of Jack's belief will come in a linguistic form that is impossible to knowingly believe (c)

p
q
-------
c

This is not a valid logic deduction!!! — neomac

Care to further discuss the topic, as compared/contrasted to my interlocutor?
— creativesoul

I don't see how we can further it. — neomac


Do you find the account I set out in the first three posts of the debate to be a complete one? — creativesoul

We can set all the other stuff aside for now and focus upon what counts as belief.
Then, we will see how much sense it makes to ascribe belief to another, because we will have some standard of belief for comparing our ascriptions/attribution to. — creativesoul

At time t1, Jack believed that clock was working.
At time t1, Jack believed that broken clock was working.
You're claiming the first is more accurate. I'm claiming the second is. — creativesoul

False belief cannot possibly be true.
— creativesoul

Which I'm not questioning. Indeed also false statements cannot possibly be true. — neomac


...we can claim of a belief (or proposition) that is proven to be true (or false), that it could have been false (or true)... — neomac


Arriving at incoherence is a sign of self-contradiction and/or equivocation. — creativesoul

If a belief B is false then B is not true and if a belief B is true then B is not false.

1. If a belief B is false then B is not true and if B is true then B is not false
2. B is actually true (or false) and B could have been false (or true)

1. If a statement S is false then S is not true and if S is true then S is not false
2. S is actually true (or false) and S could have been false (or true)
3. If a proposition P is false then P is not true and if P is true then P is not false
4. P is actually true (or false) and P could have been false (or true)

The structure was different. That is exactly what I pointed out. So, they are not just different except for that structure. — creativesoul

If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and false beliefs cannot possibly be true, then beliefs are not equivalent to false beliefs.
If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and true beliefs cannot possibly be false, then beliefs are not equivalent to true beliefs.

How many strikes do we get again in your game before being counted out? — creativesoul

when we know that an individual's belief is false, we can also know that it cannot possibly be true — creativesoul

If all A's can possibly be either true or false, and false A's cannot possibly be true, then A's are not equivalent to false A's.
If all A's can possibly be either true or false, and true A's cannot possibly be false, then A's are not equivalent to true A’s. — creativesoul

If all A's can possibly be true or false, and false B's cannot possibly be true, then A's are not equivalent to false B's.
If all A's can possibly be true or false, and true B's cannot possibly be false, then A's are not equivalent to true B's. — creativesoul

• 1. Preposterous "CreativeSoul propositional calculi" (here)
• 2. Conflation between false beliefs and contradictory beliefs (here,here,here,here,here)
• 3. Fallacious presupposition of knowledge and truth-value assessment for proper belief report (here,here)
• 4. Irrelevance of "awareness" claims wrt "contradictory belief" claims (here)
• 5. Irrelevance of the “non-problematic understanding” argument (here)
• 6. Inadequacy of the “belief” notion (here)
• 7. Inadequacies of your “knowledge ascription” requirement (here,here,here,here)
• 8. Missing justification of your belief ascription practice wrt your definition of belief (here)
• 9. Non sequitur fallacy (here)
• 10. Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (here)

Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere, denying that fans the flames of such propaganda, it doesn't quash it. — Isaac

Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses. — Isaac

And therefore is our most powerful bargaining tool. It's that simple. — Isaac

nobody is expecting Putin to put on the negation table whatever limits his authoritarian power in the interest of the Russian population. Besides Ukraine, EU or NATO are not primarily worried about freeing the Russian population from Putin’s authoritarian regime. But to free Ukraine from Russian invasion. — neomac

You're such a moron — creativesoul

The objection was based upon a conflation of belief and statements. I do not conflate belief and statements. The objection was based upon what you did, not I. What you did is irrelevant. — creativesoul

Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link — Isaac

How can a problem which doesn't exist be exaggerated? How can the Russians cause more military and political repercussions than something which doesn't exist? — Isaac

Reminding the reader of the notion of belief you're working from again... — creativesoul

Let’s not forget however that this argument must be understood within your specific theoretical framework — neomac

False belief cannot possibly be true. — creativesoul

When an author is critiquing something other than what I've wrote, and/or something that quite simply does not follow from what I wrote, it is an irrelevant critique. — creativesoul

An astute reader will note that the critique above holds good only if we conflate belief and statements. — creativesoul

what the author takes to be an accurate report and/or rendering of what's being critiqued. — creativesoul

emphasis above is mine

Differently from my claims... — creativesoul

In the first rendering they compared kinds of propositions. In the second, they compared kinds of beliefs. Hence, it is an irrelevant critique, as a result of critiquing something other than what I wrote. — creativesoul

• the genesis of your ignoratio elenchi fallacy as explained here (third point).
• That even if you compare beliefs and propositions you should distinguish qualified and unqualified subjects in your conditionals
• The validity of the “cannot possibly be true/false” requirement (as in “false propositions cannot possibly be true”) depends on the meaning of “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms), not on the meaning of “belief” or “proposition” per se.

If all A's can possibly be true or false, and false B's cannot possibly be true, then A's are not equivalent to false B's.
If all A's can possibly be true or false, and true B's cannot possibly be false, then A's are not equivalent to true B's. — creativesoul

Ukrainian Jews Angry and Appalled at Putin's 'Denazification' Claim

After the Russian leader evoked the term 'denazification' to explain his invasion of Ukraine, local Jews call him 'totally nuts' and say they have not experienced antisemitism under the current government

"We believe that talk of 'fascists', a rise in 'followers of Bandera' (a nationalist who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II) and the return of Jewish pogroms is intended to frighten people," said the signatories, who included businessmen and artists as well as the president of the federation of Jewish organisations in Ukraine, Iosif Zisels. "The claim... that there is rising anti-Semitism in Ukraine does not in any way correspond with reality." While Kiev kept a close eye on nationalists in Ukraine, "the same cannot be said of neo-fascists in Russia who are given official encouragement," the petition concluded, calling on Putin to "stop interfering in Ukraine and encouraging pro-Russian separatism".

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? — FreeEmotion

If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and false belief cannot possibly be true, then propositions are not equivalent to false belief.

If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and true belief cannot possibly be false, then propositions are not equivalent to true belief. — creativesoul

• If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and false propositions cannot possibly be true, then propositions are not equivalent to false propositions.
• If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and true propositions cannot possibly be false, then propositions are not equivalent to true propositions.
• If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and false beliefs cannot possibly be true, then beliefs are not equivalent to false beliefs.
• If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and true beliefs cannot possibly be false, then beliefs are not equivalent to true beliefs.

• We should distinguish qualified and unqualified subjects (like “true proposition” or “false proposition” vs “proposition”, or “true belief” or “false belief” vs “belief”) as reported in these claims. If we do not distinguish them appropriately, then the antecedents of the conditional claims will be contradictory: e.g. if “all propositions” means “true propositions and false propositions” then “all propositions can possibly be either true or false” is a contradiction in terms, while if we take "propositions" to generically refer to any proposition prior to (or independently from) any assessment of its truth-value then there is no contradiction.
• The validity of the “cannot possibly be true/false” requirement (as in “false propositions cannot possibly be true”) depends on the meaning of “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms), not on the meaning of “belief” or “proposition” per se.

• Distinguishing qualified and unqualified subjects wrt to their alethic status assessment
• But then swapping them implicitly and misleadingly while comparing propositions and beliefs

• you should NOT compare assessed beliefs (i.e. “false beliefs” or “true beliefs”) with unassessed propositions (i.e. “propositions”), or unassessed beliefs (i.e. “beliefs”) with assessed propositions (i.e. “false propositions” or “true propositions”).
• Instead you should compare assessed beliefs (i.e. “false beliefs” or “true beliefs”) with assessed propositions (i.e. “false propositions” or “true propositions”), or unassessed beliefs (i.e. “beliefs”) with unassessed propositions (i.e. “propositions”).

At time t1, the individual believes that that particular clock is a working one. It is not [0]. The individual's belief is false [1]. False belief cannot possibly be true [2]. Therefore, the individual's belief cannot possibly be true [3]. "That clock is working" can be [4]. It only follows that "that clock is working" cannot possibly be what the individual believes [5]. — creativesoul

Twat. — “creativesoul

A gifted shitshow consisting of a gross misattribution of meaning bordering on deliberate obfuscation... — creativesoul

I've much more important matters to be involved in. — creativesoul