Russia caca too???

Okay, but I'm saying NATO biiiiig caca.

If we are in a forum debating things we can link sources, provide arguments , offer definitions — neomac

Most of the intelligent posters here have linked sources, provided arguments and offered definitions. It doesn't seem to have been sufficient.

I try to identify the logic structure of the argument, so e.g. in case of a deduction premise and conclusion , to check if it's logically valid. — neomac

OK, so take me through the process with "Russia is a security threat to Western countries". We should have a list of premises which logically entail that conclusion. So what is that list?

I don't even know what opinions you are talking about how can I possibly believe they all are indefensible and irrational?! — neomac

You don't need to know what those opinions are for my claim "you find all alternative opinions, from scores of military and foreign policy experts...all of them...indefensible and irrational" to apply, you only need know they exist. If a single expert disagrees with you then (according to your principle) it must be because he is irrational, because you are better than him as rational analysis. This follows from...

1. If there are two claims that I find both defensible after rational examination, I would find more rational to suspend my judgement. — neomac

and

2. You have not suspended judgement hereon the proposition in question (nor have you done so on many other related propositions in this thread)

The only alternative I can think of is that you think every expert in the world agrees with you. Is that what you think? Otherwise, the mere existence of experts who disagree with you should cause you to suspend your judgement simply on the charitable assumption that they're not idiots because you'd automatically assume their position to be at least rational.

the point is not to assess people or opinions, but to assess actual arguments, so e.g. what are the actual arguments — neomac

Of course it's about people. You assess argument A to be irrational, I assess it to be rational. No further assessment of A is going to resolve that difference, we've (for the sake of argument) extracted all the propositions and evidences within argument A one-by-one and I still find it rational, you still find it irrational. There's simply nowhere left to go other than decide if your judgement or mine is the better.

I'm not sure how you understand it or intend to apply it. In what sense do the fact that I listed underdetermine the theory (?) that Russia is a security concern for the West? — neomac

I can't find such facts as a list (not so as to be sure that I'm referring to the facts you're wanting me to refer to). I don't think that matters though. It's quite a general principle that facts underdetermine theories, I don't think it's application here would be any different to the general case.

Most of the intelligent posters here have linked sources, provided arguments and offered definitions. It doesn't seem to have been sufficient. — Isaac

It is sufficient for people posting in good will. But nothing is easier to fake than misunderstanding.

It is sufficient for people posting in good will. — Olivier5

I see. And how do you determine if a post is 'in good will'?

A good willed poster does not misrepresent systematically what he is responding to.

A good willed poster does not misrepresent systematically what he is responding to. — Olivier5

Uh huh. And how do you determine if that which is being responded to has been 'misrepresented'?

Nato caca, America caca, Russia caca, China caca, Islamism caca, EU caca, Israel caca, capitalism caca, communism caca, fascism caca, populism caca, democracy caca, religion caca, science caca, art caca, sport caca, French cuisine caca (kidding... not really though :P), the universe caca, this forum caca. Anything else?

Anything else? — neomac

God, the biggest caca.

Generally speaking, when poster X goes through the trouble of rephrasing what another poster Y has already phrased, there is a risk for a straw man. If poster X does so very often, and his victims very often do not agree to the rephrasing, and berate him publicly for it, that is an indication that X might be addicted to straw men. Aka willful misunderstanding.

OK, so take me through the process with "Russia is a security threat to Western countries". We should have a list of premises which logically entail that conclusion. So what is that list? — Isaac

Here's a list, that could be put far more... It doesn't include the biggest offenses (possible coups etc) as this is only at Western countries and basically at the Nordic and Baltic countries. So with Ukraine and in some other places (like the Balkans etc.) Russian operations have far been more aggressive. But you asked specifically about Western countries.

- Russia has made extensive hybrid attacks and implied pressure to Finland, quite well reported by ambassador Rene Nyberg here: Form Hybrid Operations and the Importance of Resilience: Lessons From Recent Finnish History (Carniege endowment for international Peace, author René Nyberg)

- Russia makes threats to it's neighboring countries and assume they have a say in the security policy of Western countries. (See here)

- Russia has made cyber attacks towards Western countries, starting with Estonia in 2007 (see here) Last one's have happened here a month ago or so.

- Russia has organized refugee migrations into Northern Finland and Norway as a show-of-force that they could use this. (Explained in the Nyberg article)

- Russia kidnapped Estonian security officials inside Estonia and then traded these for their own spies. (See here)

- In Russian TV possible invasion of Swedish Island of Gotland is openly discussed (among attacking the Baltic States) See here

- Russia has made very often air space violations of Baltic States and Finland and Sweden.

And needles to say, Russia has invaded it's neighbors and annexed territory from them, which obviously causes concern to other neighboring countries.

(And I guess the response I'll get to this is a list what the US has done to Third World countries. Because that I guess makes all above totally OK behavior.)

when poster X goes through the trouble of rephrasing what another poster Y has already phrased, there is a risk for a straw man. — Olivier5

Uh huh. So if we look back at all your posts we'll find only exact quotes, yes? No rephrasings? Or is it OK when you do it, but risky for others?

If poster X does so very often, and his victims very often do not agree to the rephrasing, and berate him publicly for it, that is an indication that X might be addicted to straw men. — Olivier5

Likewise, we'll find no dissent attached to any of your rephrasings? Everyone agreed that your rephrasings were accurate representations of the original proposition?

Is that your claim? Or are we all guilty of misrepresentation, and thus none of us posting in 'good will'?

Or, are we just seeing yet another boring example of your inability to tell the difference between the way things seem to you, and the way things actually are.

I guess the response I'll get to this is a list what the US has done to Third World countries. Because that I guess makes all above totally OK behavior. — ssu

That would make sense as a preemptive defense if we were arguing about whether such behaviour was 'OK'.

But since everyone with a level of analysis above that of a five year old already agrees that neither set of actions are 'OK', then it misses its mark by miles.

The 'OK'ness of Russia's actions are neither here nor there. We're not their judge, we're not sitting at the pearly gates deciding whether to let them in.

The question is what it is 'OK' to do about those actions.

This is where the behaviour of the US becomes relevant. If the US behaves similarly but we do not act to defend against them, then doing so to defend against Russia is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is, at the very least, cause for concern.

As to your claims.

The issues, with regard to my discussion with@neomac are these...

extensive — ssu

well reported — ssu

assume — ssu

as a show-of-force — ssu

very often — ssu

All of these are interpretations. Necessary ones to support a theory. Russia might well have made 'a small number' of hybrid attacks. The threats may have been 'badly reported'. They may not have 'assumed' anything about their role, but rather justifiability concluded it. They may not have used refugees as a show of force, but rather for some other purpose. They may have violated air space quite 'infrequently'.

All of these are possible interpretations, they're not ruled out by the empirical facts (there's no empirical fact, for example, about how often is 'very often'). As such the facts underdetermine the theory. One could perfectly rationally look at those facts and conclude they are insufficient to warrant an assumption that Russia represents a security threat to Europe. And indeed, many have.

Any country with an army has a non-zero chance of raising a security issue with a European country. No country is 100% going to invade. So whatever the evidence, we need to make a decision about what level of probability is going to constitute, for us, a 'security threat'. That decision cannot be made on the basis of any empirical data. It's a purely political decision driven entirely by one's ideological commitments.

Likewise, we'll find no dissent attached to any of your rephrasings? Everyone agreed that your rephrasings were accurate representations of the original proposition?

Is that your claim? Or are we all guilty of misrepresentation, and thus none of us posting in 'good will'? — Isaac

My claim is that some are more guilty than others, and that you in particular are a serial willful misunderstander. You do it all the time.

There was one case recently where one of my rephrasing was challenged, by no other than the thread creator @Manuel. I agreed that I was caricatural and changed my rephrasing to something we both could agree on. You can see that conversation here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/703634

My claim is that some are more guilty than others — Olivier5

Ah, as I suspected. So how much more guilty constitutes a lack of 'good will'? 10% more? 15%? How have you measured 'more guilty'? Do you have those figures to hand? Some kind of tally, I presume?

Because otherwise we'd have to accept that it merely seems to you as if I do it more often than you. It merely seems to you as if the difference in frequency is sufficient to warrant the conclusion about 'good will'

Yet, the argument was that...

It is sufficient for people posting in good will. — Olivier5

The 'it' here being the determination of rational from irrational arguments. Are you saying that such determination is dependent on the way things seem to you to be?

So how much more guilty constitutes a lack of 'good will'? — Isaac

When it is almost systematic, ie when the person almost never gets it right, and yet uses this trick a lot.

EDIT: Also when the deformation, the bias, is always negative, evidently intended to grossly disfigure and hence ridicule the other's opinion. A person in good will -- if hard of hearing or a poor English speaker -- would get things wrong often but randomly, both in a positive and negative direction. A person arguing in bad will is always slanted towards the negative.

Finally, when it's not just you, but several other posters have repeatedly complained about the bad will behavior, it lends a degree of objectivity to it.

Well that's just replaced one set of completely subjective judgements with another. I asked how much 'more guilty' constitutes too much more and you give me "almost", and "a lot". How near to systematic is 'almost' and how often is 'a lot'?

I've edited my answer.

I've edited my answer. — Olivier5

To what end? You still have not provided anything other than subjective judgements about what constitutes "almost", and "a lot".

What if I agree with you on principle, but disagree that I do it 'a lot', that in fact, the number of times I do it is only 'a few'?

Are you suggesting there's some empirical fact about how many times constitutes 'a lot'?

Not to mention the fact that you have not actually counted the occasions at all bug are instead relying entirely on your subjective impression of the frequency.

What if I agree with you on principle, but disagree that I do it 'a lot', that in fact, the number of times I do it is only 'a few'?

Are you suggesting there's some empirical fact about how many times constitutes 'a lot'? — Isaac

Yes, I do. Human behavior can be studied objectively. You of all people should know that.

Yes, I do. — Olivier5

OK. What's the number then?

Why don't you call a specialist in the scientific study of human behavior?

It wasn't an international border. Once states break away and get their independence, it's different. — ssu

A border doesn't need to be "international" to be a border. And the consequences of changing an original border must be taken into account, otherwise it can lead to conflicts like the one we now see in Ukraine!

The fact remains that borders either change or they don’t. History shows that they do.

Therefore, my position is that borders can and should be changed as and when demanded by Justice and according to the principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

In contrast, if you are “against changing present borders” as you claim, then,

1. You should be AGAINST:

Russian-held Crimea being given to Ukraine.

Turkey changing Syria’s borders.

NATO expanding its borders, etc.

And

2. You should be FOR:

China keeping Tibet.

Turkey keeping Cyprus.

The Kurds never having their own state, etc.

Moreover, given that a lot of borders have been drawn as a result of invasion and occupation, by being against changing borders you are against unjust invasion and occupation being redressed, i.e., you're against Justice.

Ergo, your stance is too inconsistent and self-contradictory to add up.

One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation. — Manuel

By the same token, one should not be put in the default position of *having* to say "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime", if it turns out that the invasion was motivated by legitimate security concerns and, therefore, not necessarily a crime, major or otherwise ....

Why don't you call a specialist in the scientific study of human behavior? — Olivier5

About the exact number that constitutes 'too often'? I'll ask around, but I don't recall any papers on the subject.

Why so clandestine? If you already know the number, why aren't you just telling me, it seems like an important thing to know.

12 is the magic number. It always was, and always will be.

One can peacefully co-exist with one's enemy if both should so choose. — creativesoul

Then they are not enemies to begin with, so your point is moot.

Peaceful co-existence need only require that one sovereign nation respect another.

And Western countries have never respected Russia to begin with.

One can see another as the enemy of self-governance.

A country that actively seeks membership in not one but two organizations that will significantly shape the internal and external policies and actions of said country is clearly not interested in self-governance.

The hallmarks(actual results) of good self-governance are shown in the actual lives and livelihoods of the overwhelming majority. Good government produces quality lives.

People have been trying to cover up their narcissism, hatred, contempt, lack of consideration in many ways, and this emphasis on "self-governance" is the way that is in fashion now.

The same is true of individual people. One can consider another an enemy on certain terms and in certain non violent, non harmful ways. These terms and ways do not cause harm. Nor do they seek any unnecessary unprovoked offensive violence towards this enemy. Seeing another as an enemy is in itself insufficient ground for the enemy to cause retaliatory harm. So, no it is not the least absurd to be able to expect to see another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways), and completely expect the enemy to be and remain nice and harmless.

This is nonsense.
There is no such thing as "seeing another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways)".

Someone isn't your enemy because you call them so. But if you insist in doing so, and you take preemptive action, the other party is justified to begin to consider you the enemy (and take according action).

What you're describing here is the preference for a narcissistic one-way relationship where one party gets to define all the terms of engagement, and the other party is supposed to comply. The other party has no say. They are supposed to think of themselves the way the first party demands.

Are you a Christian?

Seems like the most sustainable solution would be for the western nations to give Ukraine enough weapons, so it would take back its territories, including Crimea. Russia would be rotting under sanctions until it agrees to demilitarize/denuclearize/deputinize and elect someone at least half-reasonable as its head, at which point lots of regions would break off, as well. That way we could hope that the People's Republic of Moscovia would no longer be a threat to its neighbors.

The CIA thinks he's got cancer and that there's a scramble going on in the Kremlin to find his successor. They don't want to put to much weight on that though, because they've been burned before from high level sources of information.
Newsweek

I don't see a big difference whether he dies on his own or is killed by his cronies, after Russian economics are rolled back into the 1980s.