You are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off a PowerPoint presentation. — Tzeentch
I don't see need absolute certainty to be sure of something. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and the pretention that such is necessary to take a strong stance towards something, that is intellectually dishonest, especially when that standard is applied one-sidedly to the narrative you happen to disagree with. — Tzeentch
Moreover, outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit. That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor. — Tzeentch
However the fun part to me is mainly to play by argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. Besides since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum, we can more easily end up discussing our conceptual frameworks, our terminology, our beliefs’ inferential or explanatory power, etc. and this in turn can help not fix the world, but fix (clarify/reorder/clean up) one self’s ideas about the world. — neomac
"I do have the relevant academic background to develop my own general picture based on rudimentary data like troop numbers, movements, etc. That's good enough for me. — Tzeentch
When events are moving powerfully and with speed, responses have to match both or else fail. — Isaac
I don't understand how much confidence you can put in the idea that you ... would be able to provide a powerful fast response... against the abuses of the evil people that govern us ..., and yet without being as abusive or worse than them. — neomac
And how would you "fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it" in more detail? — neomac
it's mainly about raising, or maintaining, a movement of voters opposed to the abuses of power — Isaac
Are you talking about being militant in some political movement or party that are against
one's Western country's involvement in this war? — neomac
You don't know anything about diving, do you? — Tzeentch
The original question that Benkei raised was if it's possible for a non-state entity to do the operation, meaning it's impossible to plant explosives at that depth by anybody else than nations. — ssu
The question was, would you really need a state actor to do this sabotage or not. If only a state actor can do it, I guess then that means that no private entity could not do it. (Like shoot down a satellite, as I gave as an example). Diving to that depth and planting explosive is possibleWho's suggesting it's impossible? — Isaac
Stop right there, you are just carried away to you own condescending imaginations of other people in this forum.What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. — Isaac
As I've already said, even earlier than the last response to Tzeentcn, I think the probability of the attack being a private entity is unlikely.The question was obviously about the relative credibility of the hypothesis, but since answering that would cast shade on the US you have to deflect to some pedantic drivel about whether it's physically impossible for someone to place explosive on a pipe underwater if they're not a government. — Isaac
If there's something to be critical about, I will be. I've said enough times that there's a lot to be critical about the West, including my own country. — ssu
it's you who seem not to understand that as countries have agendas, they can easily also go with the truth when it fits their purpose. — ssu
Again nonsense. You have to check the sources and verification and not judge / dismiss them just by looking at what the source is. US has it's agenda, but the US and Western intelligence sources were correct about Putin attacking Ukraine. Some cherished "alternative" sources were saying that Putin wasn't going to attack.You (and the others I've mentioned), seem to weigh evidence which is provided (or confirmed) by official sources as being of a higher grade than evidence which is not. — Isaac
Hence you have to be critical about them. But that doesn't mean, like you seem to exist, that they cannot say anything true. The US lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, they exaggerated the losses that for example the Serbs suffered during the Kosovo war. Hence you have to have critical reading skills.Official sources are directly involved in the war and have a proven track record of lying. — Isaac
Putin can and has been totally right on certain issues.You can't argue that the US might just happen to be right sometimes (despite a track record of lying) without at the same time conceding that Putin might just happen to be right despite a similar track record of lying. — Isaac
Especially when I have not opposed his remarks of the West being responsible of the pipeline sabotage. It's a possibility. But seems that you make your mind what people think without much reading what they actually say. Hence it's really a good example here.Sy Hersh was just a good recent example. — Isaac
You have to check the sources — ssu
you have to be critical about them — ssu
understanding history and how the states operate — ssu
knowing how they operate and reading history of past events is very valuable — ssu
Oh that's your argument for how you judge comments: from thei relevant academic qualifications.I've not presented a single argument here that isn't backed up by academics with relevant qualification in their fields. — Isaac
I would look at the facts and the opinions they have — ssu
There might be changes, but they wouldn't have anything to do with Trump or whatever blithering idiot they put in charge of the White House. — Tzeentch
Europe is witnessing its bloodiest cross-border war since 1945, but Asia risks something even worse: conflict between America and China over Taiwan. Tensions are high, as American forces pivot to a new doctrine known as “distributed lethality” designed to blunt Chinese missile attacks. Last week dozens of Chinese jets breached Taiwan’s “air defence identification zone”. This week China’s foreign minister condemned what he called America’s strategy of “all-round containment and suppression, a zero-sum game of life and death”.
As America rearms in Asia and tries to galvanise its allies, two questions loom. Is it willing to risk a direct war with another nuclear power to defend Taiwan, something it has not been prepared to do for Ukraine? And by competing with China militarily in Asia, could it provoke the very war it is trying to prevent?
The Economist - 9th March 2023
Take Seymour Hersh's article for example. It blames the US government for the pipeline sabotage. So the US government will want to suppress that story (note we haven't even got to whether it's true or not yet).
They will use their enormous power to rapidly put it down. If, therefore, you think you might not want that story put down, you have to amplify it quickly and with force. You have to resist that suppression. — Isaac
As far as I can tell, Hersh’s article is not subject to censorship nor is Hersh prosecuted/jailed because of that. — neomac
Maybe Hersh’s article doesn’t enjoy as much visibility in the mainstream outlets as one could find desirable. But this is part of Hersh’s article credibility problem. — neomac
the Western news platform credibility — neomac
On the other side, Rupert Murdoch’s channels, and pro-regime news outlets from China, Russian and India, which can give more visibility to Hersh’s article, don’t improve Hersh’ article credibility since I believe that those sources can be fake news dispenser more likely than the Western outlets for political reasons. — neomac
the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.