Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    So options A,B,C are practically saying that the West supporting Ukrainian defence is coward, hypocrite and cynical. While you would choose D which implies refusing to support Ukrainian defence and accepting Russian demands (whatever they are) not out of cowardice, hypocrisy or cynicism of course, but because it saves Ukrainian civilians as much as possible. And this is supposed to be the best example of analysis to make decisions not to morally condemn or do virtue signaling, right?


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

    If they support it, why is there such a level of censorship in Russia (which is not even under martial law)?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What's evil is the invasion, the bombing of civilians, etc. — Olivier5

    Worse than this, Putin is killing people who - he claims - belong to the same nation as Russians. So he's like killing Russians!
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    You didn't specify anywhere what kind of conversation you want in your post. This is a public forum about Ukrainian crisis. You made a claim that I as others find questionable and I addressed it as such.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    wanting a war to continue — Isaac

    Then by your definition I'm not warmongering. I didn't want a war between Russia and Ukraine nor I want it to be continued. I was talking about my expectations about what the Ukrainians want not about what I want. BTW were the Russians warmongering when fighting back the Nazis out of their country in WW2?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac

    Me or Putin? Define "warmongering".
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    I don't expect the victims of an aggression to make peace with the aggressor, especially while the latter is rampaging with the aggression. Unless they are demotivated to fight and defend their rights for themselves, of course.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful. — Isaac

    No the problem is that Putin has framed the 'evil neo-nazi Ukrainians vs. noble holy-warrior Putin&Russians' in the first place (and persisting with that). That is unhelpful for peace making.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The senator was totally shocked that the answer wasn't no, and changed the subject to his next question (aka. damage control) — boethius

    I see zero shock on Senator Rubio's face, voice, posture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvRpntmUIxs). The next question is just reinforcing the narrative that Russia can use the Ukrainian bio labs for a false flag operation similarly to what may have happened in Syria & Chechnya.

    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

    What is ambiguous may be that she didn’t say simply “no” right away. However the explanations she gave were enough to make clear that whatever was in that lab could have been weaponized by the Russians against the Ukrainian civilians (as it is claimed to have happened in Syria and Chechnya). And that also why she didn’t simply say “no”. Still the Russians and its troll army could try to play it against Ukraine b/c whatever can be weaponized against the Ukrainian civilians can as well be weaponized against the Russian army or philo-Russian civilians.

    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

    They took care of it.

    What does the EU get? — boethius

    Unity against a common enemy (Russia) and question their subordinate role toward an unreliable US. This awakening may be essential for EU's future survival and prosperity.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    she's answering the direct question of whether there are bio-weapons in Ukraine. — boethius

    If they wanted a clear & unequivocal answer from Nuland, they would have asked for such an answer. But they didn’t, and also that can be seen as suspicious.

    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

    Feeding the Russian propaganda with half truths to increase Russian support will facilitate e.g. Russian use of chemical weapons in a "false flag" attack against Ukraine [1]. This would be an example of being more reckless.

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

    I’m referring to a war of propaganda and how the Russian intelligence resources might be invested to feed the propaganda machine.

    "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

    I’m just saying that one part of the American establishment might find some use in feeding the “neo-Nazi”, “bio-weapons”, “Russian genocide” narrative in a way that on their side grants plausible deniability while on the other side it can contribute to escalate tensions between Russia, Ukraine and EU.

    EU has gotten fucked, has it not? — boethius

    As much as Russia, its useful idiots and its useless troll army.

    [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-may-use-chemical-weapons-false-flag-attack-not-more-broadly-western-2022-03-11/
  • Ukraine Crisis
    But if you have a better explanation of Nuland's answer, feel free to debate that point of view on a debate forum. — boethius

    We can not exclude that there are competing views within the American establishment toward this war. Some maybe want to escalate the conflict between the West and Russia. Others do not want to escalate it further. Maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland is dog-whistling to the Russian propaganda and intelligence on purpose, to galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless. In other words, Nuland and the piece of establishment she represents could be doing their dirty job by exploiting such ambiguous declarations in public hearings.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    For Putin's internal propaganda of course, coz the Ukrainian population wasn't that neonazi afterall. They should have been liberated from the neo-nazis, right? Now after fighting against Ukrainian civilians, being condemned by the Ukrainian Jewish community, having millions of Ukrainian refugees going west not east, shelling Ukrainian residential areas, destroying hospitals, violating humanitarian cease-fire, and killing Ukrainian children (which is as like as killing Russian children b/c Ukrainians and Russian are "one people" [1]) is harder to back up the narrative of the "neo-nazi problem" any more, isn't it?

    [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220201003310/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
  • Ukraine Crisis
    look-woody-trolls-trolls-everywhere.jpg
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    The above presupposes that you have a good grasp of my view. — creativesoul

    Right, but what if you do not have a good grasp of your own view?

    So... show me. — creativesoul

    I'm quoting you when I make my objections and then I spell out in detail what I have to object to your quotations, as well as why it is relevant (here is a good example to prove my point). So this already shows what I understood about your views (unless you expect from me to parrot your claims or to fill up a questionnaire). And I expect you to do the same every time you have something specific to object against my claims or arguments. But you on the contrary waste lots posts and words in recycling the same generic objections, dismissive remarks and compulsive framing accusations, that either miss my point and its relevance, or miss what I argued to support it, or simply prove your intellectual dishonesty [1]. That's why, not surprisingly, any objection to your claims and arguments are either conflating or irrelevant according to you, no matter how preposterous your arguments and claims evidently look to everybody else.
    To prove once more what I just said, your most recent posts [2] do not offer any support to the target of my objections: the ignoratio elenchi fallacy (as discussed here, see third point). Instead they point out, at best, some flaw in the way I presented my argument, and that helped me just sharpen my objection.
    Another example of your shallowness is here:
    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
    Where you accuse me of self-contradiction and/or equivocation without spelling out in detail where the contradiction or the equivocation is. You just slam your preposterous claims, and then you move on with your dumb rant as if it was enough to quote me to make your point!

    Finally let's appreciate the scale of your methodological failures (practically, as catastrophic as your substantial claims and arguments): if you think I'm misunderstanding you, you can always rectify or answer my request of clarifications. But you do not address many of my pressing questions [3] and take as rectification, just repeating the same preposterous claims or arguments that I already quoted and you claim I've misunderstood. This is a very dumb dialectic strategy because if I failed to understand your claims (even when I'm directly commenting your quotes) as you state, what's the point in reiterating them? On the other side, if I don't understand, that may only depend on the non-evident logic or meaning or truth conditions of your claims wrt shared assumptions between me and you, so it's dumb just to repeat your claims (which are under question or misunderstood) and provide examples on how to apply them (as you did here
    ↪creativesoul
    ), all the more if you so candidly admit "I am very well aware of the difficulty inherent to what I'm setting out". You should instead prove your claims with logic tools and clarifications about meaning/truth conditions/logic implications or presuppositions consistent with shared assumptions between me and you [4]. If you do not do this, you are not making your view look more convincing, but simply incommensurable wrt more standard views. Indeed it's the dumbest philosophical strategy to challenge a view with claims and arguments that are unintelligible within that view, and reiterate ad nauseam until brainwashing interlocutors holding that view succeeds. And you do know what that means right? That you literally proved nothing substantially valid to support your views since the beginning of this exchange [5] up until now, especially wrt your central claim [6].
    To recapitulate and not lose focus, here are the main important claims/assumptions that you didn't prove yet wrt what I questioned:
    • 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
    So spare me your sermons, insults and brainwashing sessions, and do some actual philosophical work, if you really care.




    [1]
    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

    [2] Here is a bunch of them:
    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul

    ↪creativesoul


    [3]
    Like the following one. You keep repeating such kind of claims:
    is impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood; and it is impossible to knowingly be mistaken — creativesoul
    But why is it impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood or to knowingly be mistaken ? What is "knowingly" supposed to mean here? Can you spell it out?

    [4] As I did for example here :
    [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

    And I take to be shared all other substantive claims I made which are relevant for my objections and that you didn't directly nor specifically question, like this one (referred to “False belief cannot possibly be true”):
    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

    Indeed I took also your remark about the logical structure of your 2 claims, as a valid observation, because I can understand it wrt our shared assumptions, even though it didn't substantially affect my objection. And since you are proving to be so sensitive about logic structures, then there is still hope you will readily acknowledge that this other argument of yours is a non sequitur:
    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


    [5]
    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

    [6]
    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
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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

    Where is the contradiction? Where is the equivocation? Can you exactly spell it out? First of all notice that the subjects are different: “false belief” and “belief” (qualified vs unqualified subject). Secondly, notice that also what is predicated is in different verb's mood (i.e. “cannot possibly be…” vs “could have been…”). But I get that some intellectual effort (which you are evidently incapable of) is necessary. So here are some additional hints (and if they are not enough I'll sharpen them at the next round): the claim that you apparently need so badly is “False belief cannot possibly be true” but this is a misleading claim, because - among others - its truth conditions (which you did not specify [1]) depend on the meaning of the word “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms) not on the meaning of “belief”. In other words, reasoning in terms qualified subject (i.e. “False belief”) is ambiguous wrt what we can infer from "being a belief" or from "being false"). To avoid this ambiguity we can better render your claim (“False belief cannot possibly be true”) as a bi-conditional:
    If a belief B is false then B is not true and if a belief B is true then B is not false.
    Notice that in this latter statement, the subject is unqualified. Of this unqualified subject we can claim at the same time without contradiction:
    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)
    And BTW the same holds for propositions/statements (i.e. “False propositions/statements cannot possibly be 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)
    Do you agree with these conclusions? If not, can you spell out exactly why not in substantial terms (i.e. meaning, truth conditions, logic implications or presuppositions)?




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

    All right, I missed to properly address this part. I’ll do it now. The distinction of A and B as 2 variables ranging over values in 2 different domains respectively, serves your specific purpose of comparing propositions and beliefs. So what your objection is highlighting [2] is the logic structure of your comparison as such. That’s fine and since I didn't clarify well enough what I took to be the same or different in the logic structure of your 2 claims wrt my 4 claims, your objection is understandable. The point is that it's grounded on a misunderstanding due to my poor phrasing. Indeed my comments were pointing at some implicit assumptions embedded in the logic structure of your 2 claims (so that's relevant for your own theory), and that do not depend on the comparison between beliefs and propositions: namely the contrast between qualified and unqualified subjects (do you deny it? [3]). Now, my 4 claims - as I said - “made more evident” this aspect by using variables ranging in the same domain. Clarified the misunderstanding, the point is that the contrast between qualified and unqualified subjects (which holds for my 4 claims too) should be relevant also in guiding a proper comparison between beliefs and propositions. And, indeed, this is the ground for my objection to your ignoratio elenchi fallacy (as discussed here, see third point). So, despite your excusable misunderstanding, my objection still holds (along with all others I made, of course [4]) .
    You can however try to deny the validity of my 4 claims, for example do you deny the following ones? If yes, can you exactly spell out why in substantial terms (i.e. meaning, truth conditions, logic implications or presuppositions)?
    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

    It's a bit late for that. In my game you lost a while ago. And there is no way to recover it. We are just reviewing how badly you lost. And we can continue as long as you enjoy it. Unless I get bored, of course.



    [1]
    you keep repeating the following claim without specifying anywhere its truth conditions:
    when we know that an individual's belief is false, we can also know that it cannot possibly be true — creativesoul
    What does the modal predicate "cannot possibly be" mean here? Are you saying if an individual's belief is false in the actual world, then it is not true in any possible world? In other words, if any individual's belief is false, then it is necessarily false, and if any individual's belief is true, then it is necessarily true, so there are no contingent true/false beliefs only necessary true/false beliefs? And if you do not mean that, what else do you mean exactly? Can you spell it out?
    Besides do you also believe when we know that an individual's statement is false, we can also know that it cannot possibly be true? if not, why not?


    [2]
    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
    vs
    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


    [3] "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".


    [4] Here is a list of entry points to my main objections to your preposterous claims and arguments:
    • 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)
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    > So, when we know that an individual's belief is false, we can also know that it cannot possibly be true, and that the individual cannot knowingly believe whatever it is that they do at the time [1]. If we then make the further metacognitive claim that they believe something that can be true, or something that is believable, then we've just ascribed a belief to the individual that they cannot possibly have [2].

    On one side, claim [1] can be applied to both beliefs and propositions, so it can not be used to distinguish them (if this is the aim of such considerations). On the other, against claim [2], we can claim of a belief (or proposition) that is proven to be true (or false), that it could have been false (or true). Any belief (or proposition) capable of representing the world in a given way is contingently either true or false (unless they are contradictions or tautologies). This is perfectly consistent with the claim that both beliefs and propositions can be understood independently from their truth-value assessment. Besides truth-value assessments are fallible, so the same belief can be assigned different truth values by the same person at different times or by different subjects at the same time. In other words, identifying a belief is a distinct task from assessing its truth-value and indeed the latter task presupposes the former task.

    > If convention has issue putting what I've presented into logical notation, it is not a flaw of what I've presented, rather it is the accounting practice that is found lacking.

    If you have issue understanding logic, it is not a flaw of logic, rather it's you who are found lacking.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere, denying that fans the flames of such propaganda, it doesn't quash it. — Isaac

    The grain of truth is what I said [1]. And there is no need to fabricate any other narrative around this. Additionally, Putin wants guarantees that Russia will keep control over lands like Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, without fearing any future demands or revenges by a Ukrainian (ultra-)nationalist government. So far all the parties involved can get it. But this has nothing to do with the label "Neo-nazi problem": Ukrainian does not need to be neo-nazi to re-claim control over Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk as much as the Spanish government does not need to be neo-nazi just to fight against the Catalunian separatist movement; and EU is not a neo-nazi government just because it fights against the far-right and far-left populist propaganda; and Trump is not a neo-nazi even if he flirts with neo-nazi right?
    What I found dubious in your claims is that you were talking about joint investigations about the "neo-nazi problem" [2]. And this can not be since the label "neo-nazi problem" is evidently designed to support Russian propaganda to justify their expansionism and/or preventive war. We could label the same issue in many other ways: like the "anti-Russian nationalist problem" or the "Ukrainian far-right problem" or the "Russian minority oppression problem" or the "Russian separatism problem" or the "Russian expansionism problem" or the "'Ukraine belongs to Russia' problem". But probably the label "neo-nazi problem" sounds much better for the Russian propaganda inside and outside their country. So no, we shouldn't fall for this label.

    [1]
    Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants).

    [2]
    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
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac

    Then what are you talking about?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    > Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"

    > You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.

    On the negotiation table there is no Russian population nor Ukrainian population nor NATO population nor EU population, nor me nor you. On that occasion Putin can make all the demands he wants the way he wants and then sell it to the Russian population the way he wants. He can say exactly what you just wrote, word by word, as if he was your ghost writer. But he will probably and hopefully fail for the reasons I've already explained: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him. And indeed this is not what he asked so you do no need to overthink about it any more: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/


    > You'll really have to explain that.

    Sure, here you go: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    > I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. 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.

    I do not know how far Putin can go to support his own propaganda and censorship measures, but as we can see he can go very very very far. So I seriously doubt that even making such kind of concessions is helpful. Besides Putin is already having problems in terms of consensus despite his nasty propaganda. Therefore he will not concede anything more that will compromise his narrative for sure.
    It is more reasonable to find some agreements on the status of lands (i.e. Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk) that he can always claim to have “liberated” from the neo-nazi oppressor, independently from an international acknowledgement of his propaganda. (Indeed this is what Putin is clearly looking for: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/)


    > He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right.

    This can be easily retorted. Since far-right political movements have been financially supported by Russia in the west, and they are at home in Russia. Indeed Putin himself is clearly a far-right leader.


    > How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda?

    For sure not by making concessions to Putin’s propaganda. Besides, concerning the Russian propaganda in their home country we can’t do much as we can’t do much about the propaganda in China or North Korea, especially in war times.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪boethius


    > Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?

    On a negotiation table Putin can ask whatever he wants, the point is that a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.

    > People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.

    I’m here to debate about reasons to believe or act as a form of personal entertainment.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪boethius


    > Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.

    To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous.

    > A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."

    I have reasons to doubt it: Putin probably wants to keep Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, under Russian control and formulate his demands accordingly on a negotiation table. But all this can be formulated in a way that is perfectly understandable without being based on "neo-nazi" or "denazification" claims.
    To which I would add: Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants). In other words, whatever requests Putin makes about Ukrainian neo-nazi problem can be easily retorted to him (so he could not even claim of himself to be an anti-neo-nazi hero).

    > Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?

    I guess they could say something like what I've just said.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And therefore is our most powerful bargaining tool. It's that simple. — Isaac

    I already addressed this:
    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
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Paine

    > Yes, the message about neo-Nazis is not a reference to antisemitism.

    Well Putin expressly talked about antisemitism too in denouncing the Ukrainian government. But even if we ignore the accusations of antisemitism against the Ukrainian government, Putin is clearly misusing the expression "neo-nazi" and "denazification" [1] to justify his special military operation for his own personal and geopolitical ambitions. Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants)

    [1]
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-calls-on-ukraines-jewish-president-to-halt-frenzy-of-neo-nazism/
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    > You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.

    Because I don’t know how the negotiation demands will be specifically formulated by the Russians wrt to the alleged Ukrainian "neo-nazi problem". We are hypothetically reasoning based on the available evidences, and all I can say is that there is no neo-nazi political majority, nor a neo-nazi regime, besides anti-semitism is banned in Ukraine, the president and prime minister of Ukraine are jewish, and Ukrainian Jews reject Putin’s claims. On the other side Russia is also affected by neo-nazi and anti-semitic propaganda and activities (russian neo-nazi are also involved in military operations against Ukraine). If these are the premises, I don’t see how the “denazification” claims can play any relevant role on the negotiation table.
    Putin probably wants to keep Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, under Russian control and formulate his demands accordingly on a negotiation table. But all this can be formulated in a way that is perfectly understandable without being based on "neo-nazi" or "denazification" claims.


    > You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.

    I don’t get your line of reasoning. The opinion of the Russian population is relevant to Putin for keeping his authoritarian power, not for Ukraine, EU or NATO. He needs excuses to justify the costs of his “special military operation” in Ukraine before the Russian population. And 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.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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

    The problem is that you can not soundly prove your claims. You can not soundly prove that I'm conflating statements and beliefs, that I'm misrendering your claims, and that my arguments are irrelevant. At best you can insult me when you fail to brainwash me. And you failed on all grounds.
    Additionally, the more you insult me or try to brainwash me (by repeating the same claims ad nauseam without even understanding the logic implications of what you yourself are claiming and related objections), the more you prove my point.

    Look, if you are tired of debating with me, there is no need to get hysterical, just ignore my posts and my arguments.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? Well it depends. If you claim that this is relevant for negotiation between Ukraine and Russia now, I doubt that for the reasons I pointed out (including the war crimes allegedly committed by Putin). The problem for Russia is not neo-nazi activities in Ukraine per se (if you also consider that the president and the prime minister of Ukraine are jews, there are the Ukrainian laws banning anti-semitism [1], and Ukranian Jewish community is voicing their disagreement with Putin's "denazification" claims ) but the far-right nationalists who are against Russian minorities. So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO).

    [1] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-passes-antisemitism-law/31473362.html
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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

    I didn't talk about existence, but about relevance on a negotiation table as you seemed interested to discuss.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    Reminding the reader of the notion of belief you're working from again... — creativesoul

    Unfortunately for you, my objections to your ignoratio elenchi fallacy do not depend on my theory as I clearly stated:
    Let’s not forget however that this argument must be understood within your specific theoretical framework — neomac




    False belief cannot possibly be true. — creativesoul

    Which I'm not questioning. Indeed also false statements cannot possibly be true. And that depends on the meaning of truth and false, not on the meaning of belief and proposition or statement, as I already explained.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    > What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations.

    It depends on how relevant is the lever. And the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven.

    I found a study from July 2016 ("The Far Right in the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine" by Vyacheslav LIKHACHEV), claiming:
    From the very beginning, the armed conflict that broke out in the Donbass in the spring of 2014 drew in right-wing radicals, on the Ukrainian as well as on the Russian side. Organised ultra-nationalist groups and individual activists established their own units of volunteers or joined existing ones. The ideology, political traditions and general track record of these right- wing extremists meant that it was both natural and inevitable that they would take an active part in the conflict. Yet the role of right-wing radicals on both sides has on the whole been exaggerated in the media and in public discussion. This article demonstrates that Russia’s use of right-wing radicals on the side of the “separatists” in Donetsk and Lugansk provinces had greater military and political repercussions than the involvement of Ukrainian far-right groups in the “anti-terrorist operation”. The general course of the conflict, meanwhile, caused the importance of far right- groups on both sides to decline.

    Not to mention how the Ukrainian Jewish community reacted to the "denazification claims about Ukraine by Putin.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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

    A logic reader will understand that you are not logic.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    An astute reader will note that the critique above holds good only if we conflate belief and statements. — creativesoul

    A logic reader will understand that I'm not conflating anything. And it's precisely b/c I'm not conflating belief and statements that I can prove where your reasoning logically fails.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    what the author takes to be an accurate report and/or rendering of what's being critiqued. — creativesoul

    A logic reader will understand that you simply failed to understand the purpose of my critique.

    emphasis above is mine

    Differently from my claims...     — creativesoul

    A logic reader will understand that your highlighting is pointless. Indeed I'm not misattributing any of my claims to you, since I'm explicitly stating that my 4 claims are different from your 2 claims, except for their logic structure which is the one you reported here [1]. But what my 4 claims show more clearly than your 2 claims, it logically holds also for your 2 claims.

    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

    A logic reader will understand that it is relevant to show:
    • 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.



    [1]
    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
  • Ukraine Crisis
    About the denazification of Ukraine... let's also hear what the Ukrainian Jews have to say about it:
    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
    (source)

    "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".
    (source)
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? — FreeEmotion

    "'diminished' Russia" is a dubious expression b/c it has to do with the potential ambitions of Russia to reach a superpower status on the global geopolitical stage, but due to the emotional connotations attached to it, it could mean "humiliated Russia" for certain Russian propaganda while for those who fear Russia it could mean "harmless/unthreatening/cooperative/supportive/friendly Russia".
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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

    Both of your claims sound correct as much as the 4 following ones:
    • 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.

    However, differently from your former 2 claims, what these latter 4 claims make more evident is that:
    • 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.

    And this shows where your ignoratio elenchi fallacy (as discussed here, see third point) is coming from:
    • Distinguishing qualified and unqualified subjects wrt to their alethic status assessment
    • But then swapping them implicitly and misleadingly while comparing propositions and beliefs
    And that's why if you want to pertinently compare propositions and belief, then:
    • 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”).
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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 ).
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    ↪creativesoul


    > At time t1, the individual believes that that particular clock is a working one. It is not. The individual's belief is false. False belief cannot possibly be true. Therefore, the individual's belief cannot possibly be true. "That clock is working" can be true. It only follows that "that clock is working" cannot possibly be what the individual believes.

    You just fetched the same argument from the trash bin, where it should have rested for ever and ever. So I must re-toss it into the trash bin for exactly the same reasons I already explained here. Evidently you fail to understand my objection as well as how valid deductions work. The problem is not in the piece of narrative you reported about the genesis of that belief but in what you feel so ridiculously confident to infer from. This confidence comes from some preposterous assumptions that are neither properly spelt out nor properly argued, and that you simply brainwashed yourself to accept, hoping to do the same with me (or us). And you failed that too. Philosophy, as I understand it, it's the opposite of brainwashing.

    > QED

    Fremdschämen. That's what I feel, sir.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    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

    This is a very messy argument. But before tossing it into the trash bin (along with all your other catastrophic arguments), let’s clarify a few points.

    First point, it seems you are comparing here 2 things:
    - The individual's belief that that particular clock is a working one, at time t1
    - And the statement “At time t1, that clock is working”
    You apparently need this comparison to establish correct belief reports wrt your understanding of the difference between propositional and non-propositional belief. Let’s not forget however that this argument must be understood within your specific theoretical framework, because my theory doesn’t require any truth assessment of a belief for proper belief ascription at all (indeed such a requirement of yours suggests a confusion between logic requirements and epistemological requirements!). In addition to that, I also questioned that you can successfully identify the right belief report without running into some inconsistencies internal to your own theory for reasons that affect also your current argument. Anyway, in this post, let’s put all the latter considerations aside and focus on your last comparative argument as it is.

    Second point, if the individual's belief is claimed to be false ex hypothesi, then also the statement “that clock is working” must be claimed to be false ex hypothesi. In addition to that, you made a general claim such as “False belief cannot possibly be true”, but since you did not explain the truth conditions of this claim (my idea is that it’s a contradiction in terms), one can find it as evident as “False statements cannot possibly be true” (which is also a contradiction in terms). Unless you can argue otherwise, if you wish so.

    Third point, let’s assume now that we can validly infer [3] from [1] and [2] (even though the structure of your argument - as it is - does not correspond to a logically valid deduction yet, so it’s a non sequitur!):
    [1] The individual's belief is false (ex hypothesi)
    [2] False beliefs cannot possibly be true (contradiction in terms)
    [3] Therefore, the individual's belief cannot possibly be true (conclusion)
    Then we can also validly infer [3’] from [1’] and [2’] b/c the above argument and the following one share the same (il)logic structure:
    [1’] The statement “that clock is working” is false (ex hypothesi)
    [2’] False statements cannot possibly be true (contradiction in terms)
    [3’] Therefore, the statement “that clock is working” cannot possibly be true (conclusion)
    Therefore either [4] or [3] must be rejected !!! And in either case it only follows that also [5] must be rejected !!!

    In other words, you should compare (assessed) false beliefs with (assessed) false statements, not (assessed) false beliefs with (unassessed) statements!!! So your messy argument amounts (among others) to an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.


    Twat. — “creativesoul

    Try harder, dude! ;)
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    ↪creativesoul
    You are taking it too personally, sir. I had fun primarily in being articulate, clear, focused, logic and versatile while formulating my objections against your view. Instead, you played very poorly at every round (and we had many), so I guess not much fun for you, independently from the scores. At your place, I wouldn't care about the scores you lost as much as about the fun you didn't have.
  • Debate Discussion: "The content of belief is propositional".
    A gifted shitshow consisting of a gross misattribution of meaning bordering on deliberate obfuscation... — creativesoul

    Look, I didn't mean to wreck your self-confidence. You put yourself into a corner, despite my repeated warnings, and started beating yourself with such an embarrassing determination that it's a bit unfair to make me feel guilty for how bad your catastrophic views look to yourself now.

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

    Sure, thing! And may Jack be with you!
Home » neomac