disagree. There IS something wrong with that. As individuals, it reinforces confirmation bias. — Relativist

Unless you live without a view on things at all, or oddly enough believe you are wrong, what else can you do and why?

The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.

Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.

Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence.

All the more reason to enable Iran to move forward without feeling the need for nuclear weapons. Fat chance of that now.

because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.
2 hours ago — Punshhh

And yet you argue against what Johnson has done. With what knowledge do you do that?

Has the actual cause of the downed airliner been confirmed? — creativesoul

Yep. Iran admitted it was an accidental downing. See Iran admits to shooting down plane unintentionally.

It tells actually how they thought that hitting two US bases would cause the US having in just a few hours stealth bombers flying over their capital, actually. I guess that's respect of your enemy, in a way.

Besides, there wasn't any way to hide it. There is a highly routine, standardized and effective method of Investigating aircraft crashes, hence the forensics will show clearly if the jet was downed by a SAM or not. Canada and Ukraine have requested and had already given permission to be briefed on the investigation. Iran won't give the black boxes to the US (why would they?), but if would have tried to deny it, it would have become a farce.

Unless you live without a view on things at all, or oddly enough believe you are wrong, what else can you do and why? — Brett

Of course we all have a worldview, but we're also fallible and I think we should value truth. You won't get to truth simply by seeking out reinforcement for what you already believe. One should challenge his own beliefs, and this is best done by seeking alternative perspectives and trying to understand them.

Haven't you ever been in a conversation with an individual with whom you disagree strongly about something that you have a lot of knowledge about - so you are certain they're wrong? Wouldn't it be nice if that other person would be receptive to hearing the actual facts? We've all been in that situation, and probably on both sides of it. Only if you're willing to be wrong will you be receptive to learning what the truth actually is.

The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.

Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.

Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.

I suspect much of that is the same with the election of Trump. On the one hand he is flippant of the technocrats, while on the other swayed by the people and popular opinion. I think in both cases many people wanted to regain a sense of lost and stolen power, as they watch more and more of it being allocated in the hands of bureaucrats and elites.

But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has.

It might not make sense to you. The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies. Yes, I've heard the term "second holocaust" tossed around more than a few times.

Yes, maybe in a world where all of Israel's enemies have nukes everyone acts reasonable and rational and everyone understands mutually assured destruction. But the costs of being wrong on this one are extremely high. Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion.

Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence. — NOS4A2

Sure, but it's an unintended consequence of the tense state of affairs Trump got us in. So although Iran is directly responsible, Trump bears indirect responsibility for heightening tensions.

Heightening tensions is one thing, shooting down civilian aircraft is quite another. Iranians have directly killed more Iranians during this period.

If your boss gives you a negative performance review at work and then you go home and beat your wife in a rage is your boss responsible for that?

Your analogy is very wide of the mark. A better one would be your boss shoots your wife and you then shoot someone who calls at your door in the mistaken belief they are your boss.

Well, I was kind of drunk when I wrote it (I am more drunk now.)

I take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake.

The important thing is that the US, like you, is a drunken maniac who will bomb anything for any reason.

As long as everybody remembers that, we're good.

Fair enough.

Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. — NOS4A2

You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

Well, I was kind of drunk when I wrote it (I am more drunk now.)

I take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake. — BitconnectCarlos

Hiya BitconnectCarlos and welcome to The Philosophy Forum :flower: One of the rules is to refrain from posting while telling us you are inebriated. Such as others are at times posting under some influence but advertising it weakens your position and over time it starts to affect opinions.

Having said that:
My feeling is that the ultimate responsibility lays directly at the feet of the airline. Period. Full stop.
If the Ukraine ATC said that the airline was clear to fly and planes were not grounded by the government than again, the direct responsibility is on the airline and the pilots. Yes, the Pilots have final say if it is safe to fly the plane in the present conditions. True as it may be that the pilot had the choice to fly the plane or die because there was a gun to his head and they would have brought on another pilot until they found a willing pilot but...
Ultimately that pilot payed the price with his life and those he CHOSE to fly safely to their destination.
It's utterly heartbreaking and I suggest it was an accident with the caveat that it was as a result of the fog of war
Yeah it's a platitude and one that affects me through one degree of separation. I know war from a distance from my Uncle serving 33 years from Vietnam to Desert Storm. And with a son surrounded by AFROTC classmates at one of the top Aeronautical Universities in the USA that is not a military institution, my fear level rises accordingly.
Please leave it as an accident and acknowledge the Iranian families that know their government is responsible for the death of their loved ones lost. We are grieving with them and hope the anger that comes with grieving is channeled into am internal rise up. My Iranian friend who escaped an arranged marriage after 7 years in the USA expressed to me that she wishes President Trump keeps the pressure on, even light of this accident.
It has the markings of an unintended consequence and I hope our President keeps that at the forefront of his mind.

eh. There's a crowd I won't bother with anymore. There's no profit in it. — frank

Mind if I am part of the crowd? I promise I won't start a food fight :wink:

take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake. — BitconnectCarlos

Your point about indirect responsibility has some general merit, but not necessarily with Presidential actions that can have wide ranging consequences. History will judge his decisions based on the totality of consequences, whether they are intended or not - and that's how it should be. We don't yet know what will be the longer term total consequences, but this data point is clearly not in his favor.

I agree its a different thing, but Trump still owns all the unintended consequences of what follows. It is part of the ledger upon which his actions will be judged by history.

But it is possible that this aircraft downing will actually have positive consequences - since Iranians are pretty pissed off that their government did this.

Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.

I agree with ZhouBoTong, that is a universal nationalism, the sort of idealism which has resulted in Brexit. If one looks at the realities on the ground, there is a large price to pay for such ideals. For starters it is probably going to lead to the break up of the UK. Why on earth would one want to do that.

Now we have Johnson imposing a kind of exit from the EU which will be decided by a handful of partisan people who are demonstrably putting party before country. While arrogantly telling Scotland that they can't leave the UK for similar reasons. The hipocricy is breathtaking, but that along with the duplicity, deceit and lies is the day to day reality of our government. They are far worse than the worst excesses of Trump, who is trying to do the right thing, which is not easy for someone who is not a politician. There are large numbers of people in the UK who are disgusted with our sham of a government and who realise that we are going to be worse off not only economically, but our integrity and reputation on the world stage is in tatters. And that being a member of the EU is far better than this farce.

What a great idea, I can't believe no one thought of doing something like that before.

I would point out though, that we have seeded very little sovereignty to the EU. But rather agree to work to the same rules on many things. Rather like in a trade agreement, but more integrated than that.

Mind if I am part of the crowd? I promise I won't start a food fight :wink: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Absolutely!

I do believe it was an honest mistake. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course we all have a worldview, but we're also fallible and I think we should value truth. You won't get to truth simply by seeking out reinforcement for what you already believe. One should challenge his own beliefs, and this is best done by seeking alternative perspectives and trying to understand them. — Relativist

Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree.

What’s the point of challenging our beliefs if it’s not to find a truth? Of course you challenge your beliefs, that’s how you reach a truth.

You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

I was speaking more in terms of national sovereignty, not so much state or municipal sovereignty. But I think some of the same principles might apply to those kinds of territories and polities. I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body.

Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree. — Brett

Here's the statement of yours that I disagreed with:

The problem is that we have our own take on things and seek information that contributes to that view. There’s nothing wrong in that, unless you think that view is wrong, then the news source one has is either leftist or right wing. — Brett

I disagreed because it seems a wallowing in comfirmation bias. Now you suggest we might reach a point where one might think one's conclusions are correct. But that's the root of the problem.: we think we have correct conclusions, and we then only go to news sources that confirm them. A person who challenges his beliefs by seeking contrary views has a stronger epistemic basis for his opinions than someone who only seeks confirmation.

That’s fine as long as you’re happy to always feel that you do not need to chose.

Iranians protest airplane disaster.

Now what did some geniuses say about Iranian solidarity?

Trump stands with the Iranian people as they protest their government at great risk to their own lives.

The world ignored the murder of 1500 Iranian protesters back in late 2019, many of them becoming de facto supporters of the murderous regime during the recent conflict, because to do otherwise would be to stand with their mortal enemy.

Couldn't be happier that Trump has decided to "stand with" the Iranian people rather than kill them in large numbers. Let's hope it stays that way.