1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 ... 390
Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/29/23 2:42 p.m.

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.


Kreb (Forum Supporter)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/29/23 2:55 p.m.

Can we all take a time out? We are moving into the mode that GRM takes pains to avoid and I don't want this thread to be locked. Take a walk, pound back some suds, wrench a little, start your weekend early....  

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter)
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
9/29/23 3:18 p.m.

I mean, it's just the typical internet argument, isn't it? Anthony says we all love war when what we are saying is that Ukraine has a right to defend itself. Other folks say Anthony is pro-Russia or thinks Ukraine should bend over and take it when what HE is saying is that the rest of the world shouldn't be getting involved. Throw in a few ad hominem attacks and Anthony crying "censorship" because his post are getting downvoted, and you have a perfect recipe.

Someone on this board (forgive me, I can't remember who) has (or had) a signature that said something to the effect of "Most people are between 3 and 7, but we act as if we are all 1 or 10". I think that applies here.

Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/29/23 3:18 p.m.
alfadriver said:

So one thing to add, a more direct analogy. 
 

What if the US President decides that it's time to save Mexico from whatever and invades. Lots of land is taken, lots of people die, and the President moves a lot of Mexican citizens to the US for some reason. The land captured is the new manufacturing hub of Mexico. 
 

The US can clearly start wwiii. All of central and South America offer help to Mexico, and China/ Russia sends arms to support them. 
 

Should the US be allowed to keep the land that they forcefully took?  
 

That should be a more obvious analogy. 

Your question was "should the US...", which is a question of morality. The answer is no they shouldn't.

The real question should have been "will the US..." or "can the US..." the answer to that is, it depends whos stronger, unfortunately.

Your attributing a moral position (which I dont think anyone on here disagrees with what Russia is doing is wrong) to a logical argument.

Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/29/23 3:26 p.m.
alfadriver said:

Btw, anthony, if your interpretation is the correct one, why hasn't it stood up in court for Facebook or google or whoever?  Seems as if you were so obviously right, it would not be a debate here. 

You talk like the law is settled and it isnt. We have two conflicting federal rulings on the matter (Texas and Floridas laws) and the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear the case.

Im not saying Anthony is correct, legally (although morally I tend to lean that way), but neither are you. Like pretty much all laws, it is settled until it isnt and all you have is the current understanding, and right now we have seemingly conflicting federal rulings.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/29/23 3:45 p.m.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

.....Someone on this board (forgive me, I can't remember who) has (or had) a signature that said something to the effect of "Most people are between 3 and 7, but we act as if we are all 1 or 10". I think that applies here.

That would be me.   It is very popular to wildly overstate the person who you are arguing with's argument in order to make if far easier to argue against it.  It of course simultaneously undercuts trust in any arguments you make.

There is also a tendency for someone to overstate their own argument, which only undermines the argument, because it makes at least that part easy to refute, thus making their other arguments suspect. I call it the Micheal Moore effect, but I am not sure there is a fallacy defined for it(?)

straw man  noun

1a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

 

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/29/23 3:48 p.m.

This appears to be their normal conscription, not some sort of additional mobilization. Russia has an ongoing mandatory conscription that happens twice a year I believe(?)

Putin signed an order on the beginning of the autumn conscription into the army

They plan to call up 130,000 Russians. Earlier, our General Staff warned that Russia plans to mobilize 400,000 to 700,000 people.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/29/23 3:51 p.m.

Remember the story of the locals that hid the Russian tank (not sure WHAT they were going to do with it)?  Someone got their hands on a Russian SAM system the left laying around after their Kyiv offensive.  They will be doing some time:

Two residents of the Kyiv region hid a Russian anti-aircraft missile defense system and missiles worth more than UAH 30 million.

They found weapons after the hostilities in Chernihiv Oblast and took them for themselves. Now they face up to 7 years, and the ammunition has been handed over to the Armed Forces.

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter)
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
9/29/23 3:53 p.m.
aircooled said:
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

.....Someone on this board (forgive me, I can't remember who) has (or had) a signature that said something to the effect of "Most people are between 3 and 7, but we act as if we are all 1 or 10". I think that applies here.

That would be me.   It is very popular to wildly overstate the person who you are arguing with's argument in order to make if far easier to argue against it.  It of course simultaneously undercuts trust in any arguments you make.

There is also a tendency for someone to overstate their own argument, which only undermines the argument, because it makes at least that part easy to refute, thus making their other arguments suspect. I call it the Micheal Moore effect, but I am not sure there is a fallacy defined for it(?)

straw man  noun

1a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

 

Thank you. And I'd also like to say that your news updates continue to make this thread valuable, as does the historical and academic context given by 02Pilot. So, as Kreb said, let's try not to E36 M3 it up too much. It's a good thread, let's keep it going.

Kreb (Forum Supporter)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/29/23 3:54 p.m.

This gets into the area of psychology, but why is it so important that we so passionately want to be right? Breaking news: We are all wrong about a lot of stuff. I have had my battles with Anthony, and to a lesser extent Opti, but I'm actually thankful that they bring dissenting opinions to the table, because it makes me think (sometimes. Other times I just operate at a superficial level.) The thing is, the more passionate we are about our differences, the lesser the chance that anyone's actually going to change their mind, and the more it becomes nothing more than a playground tussle. 

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/29/23 3:56 p.m.

Warning: Funky translation.

I think this is in reference to the Fleet HQ Stormshadow hit... a the funeral, a number of people were poisoned?  (unintentionally?).   Hey, maybe there were not any tall buildings around.  (As noted previously, someone leaked this meeting to the Ukrainians)

Translation:

At the wake of an officer in Sevastopol.
seven people were poisoned. Two died
A tragic series of events shook Sevastopol.
There at the wake of one of their officers, who was killed in a blow
in a strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters,
something irreparable happened. Seven guests were poisoned,
two of them died in intensive care.
Presumably, the cause was tainted fish,
that was served at one of the restaurants
in the city. The wake turned into another funeral.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/29/23 4:06 p.m.

The rubber decoys have been showing up again.  I think the last time it was fake S-300 systems.  These would probably be better if they build some absurd "hats" on them like most the Russian tanks seem to have.

As noted previously, this was something the Allies did prior to D-Day, to misdirect the Germans as to the location of the invasion, which was rather successful BTW (they figured farther north).

Russia's inflatable decoy tanks are 'not credible' and need to be way better to trick Ukraine, expert says

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-inflatable-tanks-misused-not-credible-expert-2023-9

 

I don't think I have ever seen one of these as a surplus item.  They seem like they would be fun for Holloween or something:

The inflatable dummy tanks of battlefields, 1918-1945 - Rare Historical ...

Kreb (Forum Supporter)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/29/23 4:09 p.m.

To heck with jump houses, I want one of those!

Instead of grenades, Perhaps the drones should be dropping lawn darts.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
9/29/23 5:05 p.m.
Opti said:
alfadriver said:

So one thing to add, a more direct analogy. 
 

What if the US President decides that it's time to save Mexico from whatever and invades. Lots of land is taken, lots of people die, and the President moves a lot of Mexican citizens to the US for some reason. The land captured is the new manufacturing hub of Mexico. 
 

The US can clearly start wwiii. All of central and South America offer help to Mexico, and China/ Russia sends arms to support them. 
 

Should the US be allowed to keep the land that they forcefully took?  
 

That should be a more obvious analogy. 

Your question was "should the US...", which is a question of morality. The answer is no they shouldn't.

The real question should have been "will the US..." or "can the US..." the answer to that is, it depends whos stronger, unfortunately.

Your attributing a moral position (which I dont think anyone on here disagrees with what Russia is doing is wrong) to a logical argument.

So then should the Russians keep the land they conquer?  It's the same question. Unless you think that stopping support will force the Russians back home. You seem to be arguing both sides of the same point. 

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
9/29/23 5:08 p.m.
Opti said:
alfadriver said:

Btw, anthony, if your interpretation is the correct one, why hasn't it stood up in court for Facebook or google or whoever?  Seems as if you were so obviously right, it would not be a debate here. 

You talk like the law is settled and it isnt. We have two conflicting federal rulings on the matter (Texas and Floridas laws) and the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear the case.

Im not saying Anthony is correct, legally (although morally I tend to lean that way), but neither are you. Like pretty much all laws, it is settled until it isnt and all you have is the current understanding, and right now we have seemingly conflicting federal rulings.

I could be fired for saying the wrong thing at work. So I'm not sure where private owned companies have to be forced to allow all speech. 
 

Let alone, we are all guests here. I am allowed to throw someone out of my home for what they say. Just like here. 

GIRTHQUAKE
GIRTHQUAKE UltraDork
9/29/23 5:57 p.m.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Its cool dude! I personally don't think it necessary to chill out, and funny enough in a way it's BECAUSE I disagree with you respectfully like this laugh.  I know for a fact I've learned things from you, or Alfa or aircooled or 02pilot; i've been wrong to you guys before and you've called me out on it which led to heated discussions I've learned from.

As for these two- it's not a "discussion" because nothing about it evolves. Their points, debate, details ect. haven't changed in literally hundreds of pages. In fact, in this segment here is a good example:

Opti said:

I also see no information disputing what I said, In fact on just the last page or two an article was posted about the type of aide the US has sent. At this point if you believe all we are sending is out of date munitions you are past help.

Alfa has replied better so I'm just retreading ground, but in never taking a stance he's effectively arguing both sides as if there could ever be a compromise with an extremist power that doesn't embolden them in some way. Further, they've got a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths- had they ever asked (or researched, even) I would have detailed in nuance that America is also greaing up to produce more shells not simply to donate to Ukraine, or to sell to them, but also to sell to other powers that Russia has repeatedly stated were next on it's list, like Estonia for instance. I never said quote, " EVERYTHING we are sending is out of date and there is no actual cost to Americans"; I just showed we're sending old tech that was built for this use that otherwise, we were paying the upkeep on and that now it's freeing up money, space and expenses. Now like you said, I do have to appriciate dissenting opinions just to keep oneself from falling too deep in their own propaganda- but against people who are dedicated in believing this false representation of you and your points, all you can really do is meet it head on, or give into it.

GIRTHQUAKE
GIRTHQUAKE UltraDork
9/29/23 6:11 p.m.

More recent propaganda videos out of Russia that continue the trend of maximalist and imperialistic ideals, up to and including excusal of genocide.  Quotes include:

“You understand that this list [of territories to be conquered] is incomplete. Everyone understands that this list is incomplete.”

“It doesn’t matter what you call it …denazification or demilitarisation. Call it whatever you want. Everyone knows what it really means …the restoration of the russian empire.”

“There are some nations whose existence is pointless.”

"They correctly understand [The West] the direction of where everything is going- they call it the restoration of the Soviet Union [...] you won't feel better, you'll feel even worse, once you finally realize what this is all about is the restoration of a Russian nation, the restoration of the Russian Empire! That's what the celebration on September 30th is all about! A frightening holiday, but not for us!"

Russia's repeatedly stated that Ukraine is only the start of their conquest- that nations like Norway, Latvia, Estonia ect. are simply next to be "returned".

Noddaz
Noddaz GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/29/23 6:11 p.m.
 

 

 

You are correct on that.  Up until WW2 the US did not have a large standing military.  The US had a large world presence in trade but not in policing the world.  My extensive time abroad and in the military has convinced me that wasn't a horrible plan.  If you study the Cobstitution and thinking behind it, it was never designed to support a large standing military policing the world.  

 

Noted.  We will never know what happened if the United States decided to let Hitler keep what he took.  After all it was in Europe, do you know how far away that is from the USA?

On the other hand, Putin and his cronies have stated exactly what they want to do.  And no matter what it costs, it is still cheaper to send munitions than men.  The Ukraine and Russia are paying the highest price for this folly that Russia started.

On another note, how long before someone uses Starlink to beam (?) current news and information into Russia?

And this morning I heard on the news that Russians are loving secret showing of a bootleg Barbie movie.  surprise

And I cannot find a link to substantiate that.

 

 

 

newold_m (Forum Supporter)
newold_m (Forum Supporter) Reader
9/29/23 7:59 p.m.
Noddaz said:

And this morning I heard on the news that Russians are loving secret showing of a bootleg Barbie movie.  surprise

And I cannot find a link to substantiate that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66934838

Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/30/23 2:25 p.m.
GIRTHQUAKE said:

Alfa has replied better so I'm just retreading ground, but in never taking a stance he's effectively arguing both sides as if there could ever be a compromise with an extremist power that doesn't embolden them in some way. Further, they've got a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths- had they ever asked (or researched, even) I would have detailed in nuance that America is also greaing up to produce more shells not simply to donate to Ukraine, or to sell to them, but also to sell to other powers that Russia has repeatedly stated were next on it's list, like Estonia for instance. I never said quote, " EVERYTHING we are sending is out of date and there is no actual cost to Americans"; I just showed we're sending old tech that was built for this use that otherwise, we were paying the upkeep on and that now it's freeing up money, space and expenses. Now like you said, I do have to appriciate dissenting opinions just to keep oneself from falling too deep in their own propaganda- but against people who are dedicated in believing this false representation of you and your points, all you can really do is meet it head on, or give into it.

I actively to debate the actual point someone is making and not straw man their argument, but sometimes there is a misunderstanding, and the actual point someone is trying to make just isnt understood. Happens to all of us.

In this case I cant understand how there is a misunderstanding. Ill quote your own words

Like Opti is AGAIN going on about "the ones footing the bill for some of the aide to Ukraine" (quote) when it's been shown repeatedly that we're getting rid of old equipment we've long paid for that's expiring soon anyway; but it doesn't matter, it doesn't fit his narrative

My point was the American taxpayers are footing some (I even used the word SOME because it isnt just the US helping Ukraine) of the bill for aide and you seem to disagree with it, keep in mind the only thing you quoted was we were footing some of the bill. Based on your words I would think most reasonable people would assume you disagree with what I said. Your response was "its been shown repeatedly that we are getting rid of old equipment...." it wasnt "some of what we are sending is out of date" or "yes we are footing the bill but we are getting rid of old of date equipment." I think a reasonable person would conclude that you disagreed with the general statement that Americans are footing some of the bill, and your rebuttal being "we are sending out of date equipment." I dont know what else you want me to think, based on what you said, besides we are only sending out of date equipment. If thats not your point then I dont see how your rebuttal has anything to do with the price of tea in china, because even you admit later we arent just sending out of date equipment, plus we arent even just sending military aide, we are sending economic aide, and who foots the bill for that? US Taxpayers.

I assumed you wouldnt use red herring rebuttals to dispute my posts. Either I misunderstood what you said or I thought too highly of your intellectual honesty.

Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/30/23 2:30 p.m.
alfadriver said:
Opti said:
alfadriver said:

So one thing to add, a more direct analogy. 
 

What if the US President decides that it's time to save Mexico from whatever and invades. Lots of land is taken, lots of people die, and the President moves a lot of Mexican citizens to the US for some reason. The land captured is the new manufacturing hub of Mexico. 
 

The US can clearly start wwiii. All of central and South America offer help to Mexico, and China/ Russia sends arms to support them. 
 

Should the US be allowed to keep the land that they forcefully took?  
 

That should be a more obvious analogy. 

Your question was "should the US...", which is a question of morality. The answer is no they shouldn't.

The real question should have been "will the US..." or "can the US..." the answer to that is, it depends whos stronger, unfortunately.

Your attributing a moral position (which I dont think anyone on here disagrees with what Russia is doing is wrong) to a logical argument.

So then should the Russians keep the land they conquer?  It's the same question. Unless you think that stopping support will force the Russians back home. You seem to be arguing both sides of the same point. 

Nope you completely missed the point. You asked "should..." again. Thats a moral question, and everyone agrees that what Russia is doing is wrong, and they "shouldn't," but that has no effect on what will or can happen. Theyve controlled the land bridge to Crimea for what 7 or 8 months now, unfortunately unless something huge changes it looks like they will end up controlling it. Im not the only one thats said Ukraine will likely lose land when this is dont in this thread, thats not a moral endorsement of the deal, only a logical observation.

Opti
Opti SuperDork
9/30/23 2:39 p.m.
alfadriver said:
Opti said:
alfadriver said:

Btw, anthony, if your interpretation is the correct one, why hasn't it stood up in court for Facebook or google or whoever?  Seems as if you were so obviously right, it would not be a debate here. 

You talk like the law is settled and it isnt. We have two conflicting federal rulings on the matter (Texas and Floridas laws) and the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear the case.

Im not saying Anthony is correct, legally (although morally I tend to lean that way), but neither are you. Like pretty much all laws, it is settled until it isnt and all you have is the current understanding, and right now we have seemingly conflicting federal rulings.

I could be fired for saying the wrong thing at work. So I'm not sure where private owned companies have to be forced to allow all speech. 
 

Let alone, we are all guests here. I am allowed to throw someone out of my home for what they say. Just like here. 

Now your moving the goal posts, you can be fired for what you say at work, but that has nothing to do with your first question. "Btw, anthony, if your interpretation is the correct one, why hasn't it stood up in court for Facebook or google or whoever" You only mentioned large tech companies, which is specifically what the two cases I mentioned are about.

My only point was the law isnt settled and if you are actually interested in this you should do some reading its not as clear cut as you think it is, which is what I was getting at. Plenty of private companies have been forced to allow speech. Even the legal definition of "speech" is being argued now.

Your analogy about your home being related in some way shows your how little you know about the subject. Your home isnt a public accomodation, but most courts have held websites are. 

 

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
9/30/23 3:35 p.m.
Noddaz said:

On another note, how long before someone uses Starlink to beam (?) current news and information into Russia?

Just this morning I was wondering how Russia gets away with domestically spreading propaganda containing easily debunkable falsehoods like this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-post-hunka-idUSL1N3B538I

Russian control over information isn't that tight. I have to think it's not simply a matter of not having access to information, but a fascistic eagerness to shut out the truth in favor of politically empowering lies.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
9/30/23 4:14 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Yeah, I think you are right on with that.  You can very see similar behavior in the west (probably not quite as widespread or one directional though).  There is evidence of that sort of behavior across the spectrum BTW.  Going against the group think can have negative consequences. Of course, in Russia, that might include a visit to the 3rd floor window, which l am sure is one reason why it is so strong there.

The ability for people to ignore (or resist believing) information they don't want to believe, is pretty universal:

cognitive dissonance  noun

psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
10/2/23 7:24 a.m.

For anyone wanting to know more about recent events in Nagorno-Karabakh and how they relate to Russia and regional security - including Ukraine - this piece from Chatham House is absolutely excellent. The complex situation in the Caucasus is far from American minds, but it is a critical region for Russia.

1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 ... 390

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
HWwZ4waCIxZSzDaLCvc6yyGejQSqg9eKinHoSY2119lQklliAYi4a9rfIP8W34eZ