Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods — neomac

Weird. What scientific studies have you read about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Or weirder still mathematical ones? Did someone derive a new solution to quadratic equations which proves there are no Nazis in Ukraine? Does the theory that the US provoked Russia defy the law of the excluded middle?

...journalistic methods... — neomac

Do you mean phone hacking...?

administrative/institutional methods — neomac

...put the Kafka down.

common sense — neomac

Ah! Just when I'd finished playing cliche bingo and all, damn. I could have got "I arrived at my conclusions by Common Sense..."

Well that depends on the reasons why one would opt for violence in the given circumstances. — neomac

OK, so the 'epistemically non-fallacious' route would be?

the ratio of increasing the military, economic, and human costs of the Russian aggression for the Russians is in deterring them (an other powers challenging the current World Order) from pursing aggressively their imperialistic ambitions, and this makes perfect sense in strategic terms given certain plausible assumptions (including the available evidence like Putin's political declarations against the West + all his nuclear, energy, alimentary threats, his wars on the Russian border, his attempts to build an international front competing against Western hegemony, Russian military and pro-active presence in the Middle East and in Africa, Russian cyber-war against Western institutions, Putin's ruthless determination in pursuing this war at all costs after the annexation of Crimea which great strategic value from a military point of view, his huge concentration of political power, all hyper-nationalist and extremist people in his national TV and entourage with their revanchist rhetoric, etc.), of course. — neomac

Or not.

The point (the one you interjected about) is that your speculation here might work out, or it might not. You can't possibly say for sure. The empirical evidence is insufficient to choose between theories, there's been no scientific paper on it, no mathematician has compressed it into an irrefutable formula, it hasn't been rendered into truth tables... You just have to choose which to believe.

So why do you believe that one?

Then violence may be a good way to persuade the Russians to curb their imperialistic ambitions. — neomac

Told you...

It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. — Isaac

persuading people through the threat of ostracism or insults or by repeating "putative" truths ad nausaum or pointing at somebody's "putative" inconsistency using maybe strawman arguments are all epistemically fallacious ways of persuading to me. — neomac

'Epistemically fallacious'? What could that possibly mean in the context of persuasion? Persuasion either works or it doesn't, there's more or less successful methods, there might be more or less ethical methods, but I can't see what more or less 'epistemically fallacious' methods could possibly mean.

Interested now in what an epistemically non-fallacious method of persuasion might be...

when there is no ground for rational/moral agreement violence is an option as viable as one can afford, and as valid as its effectiveness — neomac

So epistemically non-fallacious? Or not?

hat is why Russian aggression and Western violent response to that have their "rhetoric" force in persuading or dissuading the two competing powers and other powers. — neomac

No. That is why they may. You've yet to demonstrate that they do.

arguably — neomac

Go on then...

how about violence? Is it a way to persuade people? — neomac

Sometimes, yeah. Violence was a useful part of the civil rights movement in America, for example. Sometimes threat of violence is sufficiently persuasive. The distinction, in my opinion, as to when it works is that it actually persuades, not just frightens people into submission. Submitting to an idea is not being persuaded by it. But violence can drive home the conviction of an ideology and that's often persuasive.

Again, it all depends on the circumstances. Those well-versed in the art of persuasion will never use just one tactic but will switch depending on the audience, the prevailing circumstances, the degree of hostility to the idea.

... but here I am explaining how persuasion works when that's not really what your post is about, is it? It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. So it turns out you do know how persuasion works after all.

They don't even try much. That would require trying to understand what the other guy is saying. Too complicated. — Olivier5

Bingo! I've got "No one understands me (but I understand everyone else perfectly)!"

That's a full house.

And on what grounds do we persuade? — neomac

Depends. The reasons we're persuaded of a theory are numerous.

Sometimes it might fit better with other beliefs so I might persuade you by pointing out those conflicts.

Sometimes they might be token beliefs of a social group to which you want to belong, so I might persuade you by raising the likelihood of ostracism if you don't adopt it.

Sometimes it's familiarity and I persuade you by simply repeating the theory often enough for it to seem like the most familiar one.

And any one of a dozen other ways. You might just prefer the name of it....

Hell, sometimes I might just keep calling you a twat until you break under the pressure of my relentless insults.

So?

You don't seem to have finished your argument. Does it matter that they think us weak for using appeasement? If so, what ought we do about that? Make war just so we don't seem weak?

what ground do we absolutely have to resolve narrative or political opinion disagreements? — neomac

None. We persuade.

when offered by ssu an opportunity to discuss just that — Olivier5

Let me see if I can explain this at your level.

We are not experts in military strategy, refugees, foreign relations... Even were one of us to be, we would only be one among many.

As such, speculating via our own pet theories about these matters is pointless. If we disagree, we've absolutely no ground on which to resolve that disagreement, and if we agree we're just building castles in the air.

What we can discuss is our reasons for believing some expert or other. In other words, our political opinions, our narratives. On a thread about Ukraine, these will be (substantially) to do with the effects on Ukraine. That's not the same thing as idlely predicting what the effects will be. It's talking about why we believe someone else's predictions about what the effects will be.

The topic is still the effects on Ukraine.

The mode of discussion is not lay guesswork.

Has that got anywhere? Do I need to render it in pictures?

How long are those millions of people be away from Ukraine? What will be the effect of millions of Ukrainian children now growing up in a different country? How much will it change Eastern Europe? What are the effects for Ukraine as such a huge percentage is now refugees? — ssu

How the hell should I know? I'm sure there are people out there with far more expertise on the progress and impacts of mass migration than any of us here have. What's the point in us just guessing? Have you come across The Internet? It's got loads of stuff on it.

is it racism that East Europeans have taken up with open arms the refugees coming from Ukraine, but the migration several years before (and still taking place now in the Mediterranean) wasn't.


That could be a discussion. — ssu

Ah, you mean like here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/667030

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673863

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670630

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/663647

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/696548

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670619

Ask yourself. How much in the thread is following issues being debated: — ssu

This is a discussion forum, not a newspaper. Unless there's some interesting issue or disagreement about any of that list, I can't for the life of me think why they'd make an appearance.

But for your benefit...

According to (UNHCR) over 6 million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, 90% of them women and children.

Now what? We all congratulate ourselves for correctly identifying that this is a 'bad' thing?

Indeed without these elections I would talk about a coup too and Ukraine would be obviously quite undemocratic, as portrayed in the article. — ssu

This is a return of a well-worn classic, the old "It's just a coincidence that everything is going exactly as America wants it to"

"America did interfere with the democratic parliament of a foreign country, but it's OK, everything was going to go that way anyway! What luck!"

Same pattern as...

"The exact same arms dealers who both control the media narrative and government policy are making a fortune from the continued war they're promoting, but that's OK, it just happens to be the best policy anyway! What luck!"

"America wants nothing more than to drive Russia into the ground, remove Chinese alliances and regain control of Eastern oil supplies, but it didn't provoke the one situation which would bring this about, it all just happened anyway. What luck!"

America really should put it's next spending round on the roulette wheels, with the luck it's having lately it's bound to win a fortune.

That Ukrainians have shown their anger also in the election booth and demanded change in elections should be noted, but isn't. And of course there have been many administrations and elections since then and that now there is in charge in Ukraine a totally new political party that wasn't even around in 2014 doesn't matter at all. Nope, once you get the nazi card, you have the nazi card and people will use it at anything how ever long they want. — ssu

Ah, yes. That'll be why Amnesty International wrote in 2017

Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity. Practically no one in the country can feel safe under these conditions — Amnesty

...and why Human Rights Watch warned about...

a veneer of patriotism and traditional values were allowed to operate under an atmosphere of near total impunity that cannot but embolden these groups to commit more attacks.

...and the Atlantic Council warned in 2018...

Far-right impunity...represents a dangerous threat to Ukraine’s statehood.

...all because there's absolutely no far-right problem in Ukraine, it all just went away and Ukrainians voted and campaigned with free abandon.

I'm sure the "uncontrolled violence" by the anti-Russian far right groups had absolutely no influence at all. Maybe they all just stayed home.

The western Putinistas are a small minority in most countries, tho a vocal one. — Olivier5

Cool. Is anyone else playing cliché bingo, @Streetlight? I've just got a full line with "the silent majority agree with me...".

I'm waiting for "This is what we fought the Nazis for...", then I've got a full house.

Yep. A minute ago considering the US's role in this was overly complicating a simple issue, now doing so is excessively simplistic and parochial. What a shame we missed it when it was just right!

unaware that the world is a big and complicated place — Olivier5

Brilliant. You don't disappoint. So now your argument that "Russia is evil, Ukraine are good, and America are just benevolent bystanders" is the worldly and complex one!

Well. That's cheered up my lunchtime.

Parochialism driven to excess — SophistiCat

Well, at least your rhetorical tactics have risen above the level of a high school debating class. This one I like. Set up your objection as categorical (@Manuel categorically should not have started an OP about Ukraine if he only wanted to talk about the actions of the US), then change your objection to a qualitative one (the complaints are too parochial), and hope no one notices during the switch that you've avoided making any argument for how to measure what is too parochial.

If your position is that people should only discuss the goings-on in their home countries, then why did you open this discussion in the first place? — SophistiCat

No one's position is that we should only discuss the goings-on in our home countries.

The position being espoused is that we should primarily concern ourselves with the actions of those actors over which we have some influence (our own governments and their allies). Those actions may well (as here) take place in a foreign country.

But then I suspect you knew that already, which just shows the paucity of your argument against the actual position that you had to devise such an obvious straw man to knock down.

Ukraine chose to build financial and diplomatic relations with the west, against the wishes of Russia and it's leaders. — creativesoul

As @Streetlight has already mentioned, this is simply not true.

We obviously have a fuzzy definition of sorts - technically one 'chooses' to follow the demands of the person with a gun to your head, but we don't normally call that a choice.

Ukraine were about to make a choice one way, the US (and parts of Europe) intervened in a very substantive manner to reverse that decision. That level of interference is not what we'd normally call a free choice.

All I am saying is that not all mutual benefit and agendas are nefarious. — creativesoul

Perhaps not, but it remains the case that most are, it therefore remains the case that a least biased default would be to assume this one was (in the absence of evidence to the contrary), and it remains the case that there's little to no such evidence to the contrary.

As such, the most rational position would be that this decision was not made as a free choice.

In summary - the US usually interfere to limit the choices of nations who might oppose them, they had ample opportunity to do so here, there's no evidence to show they didn't. So why would we assume they didn't?

Just because the US policy has a sorted history of hidden agendas and not so honest means, it does not follow that every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means. — creativesoul

So, we just give them the benefit of the doubt, every time? What is it about their behaviour that makes you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

If someone has a long history of racism and they discriminate against a black person in a job interview, do you assume the discrimination was racially motivated, or do you assume it was, just this once, a fair judgement?

We're not in a court of law here. The US aren't about to be executed if we find them guilty of unfair influence, presumption of innocence does nothing here but continually excuse their actions.

A pragmatic political approach assumes each actor will act roughly according to their recent past behaviour, why would we not?

Key words:Ukraine decided... — creativesoul

In what naive world do you imagine that the enormous political might of America and Europe simply stood back and said to Ukraine "it's your choice, we'll not try to influence you in any way"?

It's funny in a world where we wouldn't even trust a used car salesman to give an honest pitch, people seem to have tremendous trouble with the idea that the world's most powerful nations might not be fully honest and on the level in their dealings with other countries.

The West runs something little short of a protection racket and people still want to believe they're running a 1950s sweet shop.

people in these countries do not speak so lightly about democracy being so to speak "just the same thing as dictatorship but with voting booths". They often hope it makes a difference. — Olivier5

I'm sure @unenlightened will follow whatever line of argument he sees fit, but by way of not losing an important point I think was raised... unenlightened did not reference 'democracy'.

The point (as I understood it) was about governments. Actual governments. People living in some tyrannical dictatorship may well want 'democracy', but that's not the same as saying they'd want the American government, or the UK government. Nor is it the same as saying they'd want those governments for the world at large.

Unless you're arguing 'might makes right', then simply pointing to a government individuals tend to prefer is insufficient ground to make a moral argument.

The point unenlightened was making, which I thought a pertinent one, was that there's insufficient gap between actual governments to justify the sort of extreme moral caricatures being drawn here. That's not the same as saying democracy is no better than tyranny, it's saying that actual existent democratic governments are insufficiently better than actual tyrannical governments to justify a certain level of moral side-taking.

Who are all these guys, and where are they discussing the impact on Ukraine, or the rest of the world? — Olivier5

It's all we've ever been discussing. I can't be responsible for the fact that you're too stupid to understand the conversation.

cause
noun
us
/kɔz/
cause noun (REASON)
[ C/U ]
something without which something else would not happen:

Are we not talking about the same word?

Apparently, the moral lines are absolutely clear between what Russia are doing and what Amnesty describe (of Turkey) as ...

an utterly callous disregard for civilian lives, launching unlawful deadly attacks in residential areas that have killed and injured civilians

We must immediately enable the latter to fight the former, all because the likes of the commentators here can't handle anything with a moral complexity greater than that of Star Wars.

They are usually about how equally destructive the US has been. But two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

Wherein lies the persistent, willful, misrepresentation of all such arguments since no one talking about the US has been doing so by way of 'judgement' of who's 'right'. It's about strategy, and accepting that Ukraine's defence doesn't happen in a vacuum, their choice involves assessing the relative merits of Russian influence vs American/European influence. The influence of neither not being an option.

Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world).

Unfortunately your incredulity doesn't constitute an argument.

What I've said is that in the Russian (and earlier Soviet) way of warfare there is an extensive use of artillery. — ssu

Seems to be a theme of yours. The comment was...

the numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu

...and it was in response to a comment about America's apparent lack of concern for civilian casualties. Your inability to just say "Yes, that's about right" has again led us down a pointless trail of Wikipedia summaries unrelated to the actual issue. I've no doubt Russia does use a lot of artillery, I've neither the expertise, nor the interest to check. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion that started this whole subsection which was the point made by @Olivier5 that Russians could not believe they were doing something righteous because if they did "they wouldn't bomb civilians so much". A counter argument to @Apollodorus suggesting they could have because American's certainly did and yet caused no fewer civilian casualties.

Your technical point about Russian use of artillery seems almost entirely unrelated. I can see perhaps that their choice to use artillery shows a pretty callous disregard for civilian casualties in military offensives, but America's use of pecuniary loan terms attached to cuts in social spending shows a pretty callous disregard for civilian lives also, just via a different method.

It would be interesting if you could tell us just who where oppose the idea that " American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia." — ssu

I didn't say anyone opposed that idea. What I said was that people opposed...

any suggestion that a similar process could lay an equal amount of suspicion on American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia. — Isaac

...that much is abundantly evident since not one single post in the entire 260 page thread that lays any blame on the US and Europe has been allowed to stand uncontested.

What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch

Nothing. I'm not remotely certain. Thousands of children's lives could reasonably be saved if America had stricter controls over the ownership of guns. If, on one side, there's a strong chance of saving thousands of children's lives I don't see how it's a moral requirement to be 'certain' those guns aren't needed for a revolutionary resistance, a reasonable guess is sufficient.

On the contrary, if you want to risk thousands of children's lives, it seems very much that the onus is on you to show that it is absolutely certain those guns will be needed. Anything less than a very high certainty that private guns will be needed to alleviate a greater risk is clearly inadequate.

During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples. — Tzeentch

In Russia...

Three days into the protests, the czar’s officials ordered the military and policy to break up the proests—using any means. The ensuing violence, says Harnett, claimed the lives of nearly 100. And on the next day, soldiers joined the demonstrators.

The army had enough.

In Nazi Germany...

Military support was key, as in 1933-4 the army could have removed Hitler. However once the SA was tamed in the Night of the Long Knives - and SA leaders who wanted to combine themselves with the military had gone - Hitler had major military support because he rearmed them, expanded them, gave them the chance to fight and early victories. Indeed, the army had supplied the SS with key resources to allow for the Night to happen. — https://www.thoughtco.com/who-supported-hitler-and-why-1221371

In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot.

In 1989 China...

The PLA's involvement in the incident has had serious and immediate results for the military, including a marked decline in public prestige and a drop in morale. Over the long term, the 1989 events in China coupled with communism's global crisis suggest that the natural evolution of the CCP-PLA relationship from symbiotic to coalitional may increase the likelihood of an eventual army-party split. — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0095327x9201800203

To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology. — Tzeentch

The effectiveness is irrelevant. It could be a 100% effective method. The relevant factor is the likelihood. What is the likelihood of a revolt, involving only private armed citizens, emerging as the only (or least harmful) method of removing a tyrannical government.

It's vanishingly unlikely on three grounds...

1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood.

3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns

Even if all those things came about and a new gunless America found itself under left-wing tyranny and wanting to rebel, you're asking us to envisage a revolutionary mass so powerful that it can overthrow the entire armed forces of the US, but which can't manage (for some reason) to just break into an army barracks and steal all the guns there.

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch

It's not your identification of the problem I'm objecting to, its your solution.

We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it — Tzeentch

And yet that's exactly what you're refusing to talk about. The likelihood.

There is a serious, deathly serious, consequent risk to keeping the guns around, so it is absolutely fundamental to any 'argument' you want to make that the countervailing risk is assessed in terms of likelihood, and yet it's exactly this likelihood which you're diligently avoiding supplying.

We know horrifically well the risk that existing gun laws produce. To have any argument that isn't just a monstrous disregard for children's lives, you'd need to show that the risk from restricting gun ownership is greater. And yet, thus far, you've barely shown it even exists.

There is, of course, some chance that an armed populace might one day be needed, but, given the very high chance (given historical precedent) that any revolution would involve at least some of the armed forces, and that most gun owners would be useless in any actual revolution, your scenario under which guns are required is vanishingly unlikely.

yet again you are making a conflict where there is no reason to. — unenlightened

You accused me of being unnecessarily insulting and unproductive. Not the other way round. In any decent company, it is such an accusation that counts as the cause of the conflict, not the attempt to respond to it. But you do you.

We can disagree about things without casting moral aspersions at each other or exchanging insults. — unenlightened

Ah, I see. Such as...

Double down on your stupidity why not? — unenlightened

your insulting stupidity — unenlightened

Are you genuinely implying that you don't see any difference in the civilian death toll? — ssu

Difference, yes. Significance to the discussion about whether Russia uniquely doesn't care about civilian casualties, no.

What you've failed to show is any kind of general trend, nor any link between direct military casualties, specifically, and an increased disregard for civilian lives above those destroyed by any other method (such as starvation or pecuniary loan terms).

All you've shown it that in one war nearly half a century ago, a completely different regime which happened to be in the same country as the one currently under consideration, showed a monstrous disregard for civilian casualties resulting from its military territorial practices.

What you've failed to show is that such disregard continued (in scale, it clearly continued in practice), nor that it was uniquely callous compared to other methods of mass slaughter such as withholding food and medicine.

I would like to make a discussion of war that does not mimic its topic, and this does not help me. — unenlightened

Unfortunate then that you're on a public forum whose membership is not limited to those who already agree with you.

And who is the target of your blame for this reprehensible post hoc deciding? — unenlightened

In general or specifically? The former are self-defined (those that do it), just as my target for criticism of racism are racists, no further categorisation is justified.

Specifically, we have an example right after your post, giving full approval (100%, apparently) to your assessment, yet in previous assessments dismissing the importance of the billions that arms manufacturers and financial institutions stand to gain from a prolonged war as potential causes.

The unavoidable consequence of following the money is that the putative blame lies with any and all of those who both stand to gain and have the means to bring that gain about.

Here, on this thread, we have ample evidence of people enthusiastic about following the money to Russian actors, but vehemently opposed to any suggestion that a similar process could lay an equal amount of suspicion on American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia.

you want to try and make a partisan point of it. :sad: — unenlightened

I'm not sure what partisan point you thought I was making, but you've misunderstood. The complaint is against idiots regurgitating media talking points and pretending they're arriving at them via some use of intellectual analysis.

Following the money is, more often than not, applied only post hoc after deciding who the target of blame should be.

Really? do you have a recent war to which it doesn't apply? — unenlightened

I meant by pundits, not perpetrators.

Ports and oil, I'd imagine, using Deep Throat's principle, 'follow the money'. — unenlightened

Funny how selectively applied such an aphorism is.

I'd say history and in recent times the track record of the United States military (the world's most advanced military) speak to the contrary.

Peasants with rifles are apparently not so easy to get rid of, no matter how much barbarism one is willing to resort to. — Tzeentch

So you've said before, yet provision of any actual historical data examples remains lacking.

You don't think people would be prompted to resist against government tyranny? As people have throughout history? — Tzeentch

I do indeed think that. What I object to in your argument is the idea that if a government ever became that tyrannical it would nevertheless utterly retain 100% obedient control over the military and the police. It's a position without any grounds or precedent.

It's you who is living in a fantasy, I'm afraid. A fantasy in which government is man's best friend, of which we have nothing to fear. — Tzeentch

It's nothing to do with what we have to fear. I think we have very good reason to be utterly terrified of our governments, I seriously believe they (and their corporate masters) might just bring about the end of civilisation.

What I object to about your argument is the pretty loathsome idea that the absolutely miniscule chance that an armed 'people's militia' will prevent such an outcome is worth the thousands of children's lives which must be sacrificed to maintain it as an option.

for Putin, starting a war has been the way to get that popularity up. It worked earlier so well. — ssu

Yeah, what are those warmongering Ruskies like eh? Such a thing would never happen in civilised countries...