Not really, no. I go by the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation, but does not imply that only reasonable statements are in good faith. The word 'faith' is not synonym of the word 'reason'. It's more an antonym in fact. Sometimes it is rational to lie. but one cannot lie in good faith. — Olivier5

The term "good faith" has a specific meaning quite devoid from "faith". It's a legal term of art which nowadays is also used in common language. Your use of it is incorrect, the absence of lies and dissimulation (great word btw) are not enough. It is generally assumed an effective translation of the Latin bona fides, which is about reliability and trust between two parties in their dealings towards each other. If you cannot reasonably rely on your statements to be correct (because you're just guessing) and if you're not taking into consideration the interests of the other, you are not acting in good faith.

He is only calling for 'action'. That's vague enough. It could be anything. An increase in weapon delivery would qualify. — Olivier5

I already mentioned to Christoffer that in the context of that small speech it's quite clear what he means.

I already mentioned to Christoffer that in the context of that small speech it's quite clear what he means. — Benkei

Someone died and made you the final interpreter of anything Zelenskian?

It is generally assumed an effective translation of the Latin bona fides, which is about reliability and trust between two parties in their dealings towards each other. — Benkei

That is correct. There is that dimension. However, I wouldn't say that my trust in Zelensky has been shattered. Would you?

the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation — Olivier5

Funny. You seem to have quite a complex grasp of the concept here...

A few pointers and indicators about people arguing in bad faith:

1. No data is good enough for them, except theirs. They are likely to disregard entire sciences and throw away vast amount of data just because they can (or must).

2. On the other hand, they choose to trust and accept uncritically any data that seems to buttress their view, without ever wondering if it's genuine or manipulative. They are eager to believe alternative views and that makes them easy to manipulate.

3. They misinterpret even their own data, like when you pretended to confuse an in vitro finding with an in vivo conclusion. This is done on purpose and is part of the lying.

4. They tend to essentialize their opponents, at least in their rhetoric. Whether it's the Jews, climate scientists, politicians, the CIA or the medical establishment, they pretend to believe that their (invented) enemies -- all of them or nearly all of them -- are essentially, fundamentally evil and will always remain so.

5. From 4, it follows that they see no solution. They will criticize any proposal or policy around, but can't propose anything cogent themselves. It's about denial and negativity, about lying and poisoning the well of knowledge for others, not about proposing new knowledge or constructively moving forward. — Olivier5

...

Even by your new measure, it is wildly irresponsible for a leader to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than that he has some kind of 'gut feeling' it was them.

Shall we have a look at the furores kicked up when people suggested America blew up the gas pipeline? What about the backlash you yourself take part in at the mere mention of US involvement in Maidan? The slightest suggestion of a back door negotiation recently brought a scathing rebuke.

Apparently now you've had a sudden change of heart, and any old reckon counts as suitable for high stakes international discussion.

it is wildly irresponsible for a leader to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than that he has some kind of 'gut feeling' it was them. — Isaac

We don't know what he knows, though. Beside, I think one could be forgiving of a certain rashness in judgment, under the circumstances.

Shall we have a look at the furores kicked up when people suggested America blew up the gas pipeline?

What furores? Haven't seen that. Last time I checked, we don't know who did it. Isn't it irresponsible to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than some kind of 'gut feeling'?

What about the backlash you yourself take part in at the mere mention of US involvement in Maidan?

I'm entitled to my opinions and to not seeing them branded as some sinister backslash. If you can't argue your case, just shut it up. Don't whine about 'backlashes'. You are as toxic a poster as any.

The slightest suggestion of a back door negotiation recently brought a scathing rebuke.

I am just pointing out how such an explanation for the Russians' flight from Kherson is not based on facts, and likely biased. Call me intolerant.

I don't trust my own politicians so that's the wrong question.

Whatever. I get you're not a native English speaker and the finer points of the translation are lost in you. Why don't you find a French translation and share it here?

Why don't you find a French translation and share it here? — Benkei

action (n.)
mid-14c., from Old French action (12c.) "action; lawsuit, case," from Latin actionem (nominative actio) "a putting in motion; a performing, a doing; public acts, official conduct; lawsuit, legal action" (source also of Spanish accion, Italian azione)

I already mentioned to Christoffer that in the context of that small speech it's quite clear what he means. — Benkei

It's not quite clear at all. It could be actions to put much harsher pressure on Russia, it could mean actions to rally military defense lines at the borders, it could mean actions to, as I said, initiate a no-fly zone and be more active in the defense of Ukraine rather than just sending weapons. It could merely mean that the world needs to take more action to prevent Russia from continuously killing civilians.

The way you handle discussions like these, pointing out that something is "obvious" when it clearly isn't obvious, other than supporting your own argument, makes it impossible to have a discussion with you. You demand that your interpretation is the valid one and then everyone around you should comply based on that interpretation because then you can win that argument... wake me up when you're a more honest interlocutor.

After all, send a large NATO coalition to carpet bomb the Russian military, then the war would be over. — Manuel

A bit drastic. :)
I'm guessing NATO/whoever aren't doing much because of unpredictability, risk, that stuff.
A no-fly zone still wouldn't force Putin to start nuking, though.

Besides, if they did, then that'd likely end up worse for Russia(ns) anyway. — comment · Nov 17, 2022

On another note, we don't really know all that much about what goes on in Russia. Whatever shows up may give hints.

Russia's economy has finally fallen into recession, 8 months after it invaded Ukraine
^{— Huileng Tan · Business Insider · Nov 17, 2022}
Putin reforms Russia’s Human Rights Council and puts commander in charge of military operations in Ukraine
^{— Daniel Stewart · News360 · Nov 17, 2022}

Effects of sanctions?

I meant a translation of his whole speech and we can do this in your native tongue.

out of arguments and back at ad hominems I see, how novel. It's obvious for anyone who can read using the common sense meaning of words in the English language.

EU Defence Review Calls for Greater European Cooperation to Match Defence Spending Increases
^{— EDA · Nov 15, 2022}

The EU isn't sufficiently organized in this respect. Maybe some day? NATO it is, until then, I guess.

What's your native tongue, pray tell?

out of arguments and back at ad hominems I see, how novel. It's obvious for anyone who can read using the common sense meaning of words in the English language. — Benkei

How in the world is what I wrote an ad hominem? I described the reasons why it's impossible to discuss with someone who requires their own interpretation to be accepted before they can accept any counter-arguments from their interlocutor. That's not an ad hominem, that's pointing at the problem of your reasoning, and your answer to that is to shout "ad hominem".

...and then the irony of you trying to prove why your interpretation is correct by prompting that those non-native English speakers you argue with would "clearly understand" in the way you do if they had only understood the English language better. Almost kind of racist in a way of an Ad Hominem now is it?

Can some other mod please enlighten me on why Benkei is still a mod on this forum? It's like a judge who's breaking the law and when being called out doing so he just continues with even more of it and the justice system just keeps him protected within the system.

You were criticising his method of argument and suggesting he's a dishonest interlocutor, which is ad hom, because you were attacking him personally rather than his argument.

(As per the basic definition:

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.)

https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome..69i57.2566j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That's not to say you broke any rules. But he's right on that point.

...and then the irony of you trying to prove why your interpretation is correct by prompting that those non-native English speakers you argue with would "clearly understand" in the way you do if they had only understood the English language better. Almost kind of racist in a way of an Ad Hominem now is it? — Christoffer

His retort wasn't racist in any way (he's a non-native speaker himself far as I know and being a non-native speaker isn't a race anyhow).

Can some other mod please enlighten me on why Benkei is still a mod on this forum? It's like a judge who's breaking the law — Christoffer

If you think Benkei broke a rule, PM me with details of the rule he broke. I don't see any rules being broken by anyone here, certainly not racism or anything remotely of the sort. Finally, please use PMs or the Feedback category for complaints in future. Thanks.

I'm guessing NATO/whoever aren't doing much because of unpredictability, risk, that stuff. A no-fly zone still wouldn't force Putin to start nuking, though. — jorndoe

I think this is standard game theory, if I remember correctly, but the details could be off.

The standard interpretation would be that he now has no other options, because Russia clearly cannot go toe to toe with NATO. So, they can either get destroyed by NATO completely, or strike back as soon as a no fly-zone is implemented.

Again, this would be direct involvement. Yeah, theoretically, one could say, there's a very, very, very small chance Russia would simply allow for a No-Fly Zone to be implemented, which would render whatever war aims they have null, which would be a massive embarrassment to Russia - something great powers do not tolerate at these levels.

But it *could* happen. Sure, and China could send troops to help Russia out. It could happen.

That's not the rational being used for the reaction on the missile attacks in Poland.

It's not a fallacy to contest another poster's interpretation nor method of argument. @Benkei says he knows best what Zelensky meant, "in the context", because we're not native speakers. That's a ridiculous claim.

Note that Zelensky is not a native speaker either, so arguably Chris and I understand him better than any of you natives.

I'm not getting involved in that. Maybe his claim is ridiculous or not. Maybe you and Chris understand Zelensky better or not. I'm just commenting on the complaint. Carry on.

because you were attacking him personally rather than his argument. — Baden

Ok, what was his argument? To be an ad hominem there has to be an argument that I didn't adress? That his interpretation is more valid based on "just knowing English better", that's not what I call an argument.

His retort wasn't racist in any way (he's a non-native speaker himself and being a non-native speaker isn't a race anyhow). — Baden

If the same tactic was used against an English-speaking Pakistani man, pointing out that he is wrong just because he doesn't understand English when he clearly does so, and that being the foundation for the argument put forth. Essentially providing a speculative interpretation and telling the Pakistani man that if he interprets it in any other way, he's just bad at English ... would it be racist then? Or considered to be that?

Because as far as I can see, attacking someone's ability in English, when they clearly are proficient, only based on the idea that they're not native English speakers as the whole foundation for dismissing their writing... seems like there's a racist component in it?

These are not further complaints, just trying to clarify how you interpreted what I wrote.

Sounds like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

"Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark"), and invalidly inferring its converse ("The room is dark, so the lamp is broken"), even though that statement may not be true. This arises when a consequent ("the room would be dark") has other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off" or "there is no lamp in the room")."

The consequent here "pointing out someone is wrong because they're a non-native speaker" has more than the one antecedent given in your example. i.e. A racist could make that comment and a non-racist could make it too.

Note that Zelensky is not a native speaker either, so arguably Chris and I understand him better than any of you natives. — Olivier5

Yeah, maybe Zelensky just misspoke? According to the logic, a non-native English speaker is not reliable enough in using the language for a conclusive point, meaning Zelensky could have meant basically anything. If understanding English leads to wild misinterpretations, then just imagine trying to formulate a rock solid conclusive message in a language you don't even speak natively :scream:

It kinda shows how ridiculous such a thing is to use as a counter-argument, which is my point.

The consequent here "pointing out someone is wrong because they're a non-native speaker" has more than the one antecedent given in your example. i.e. A racist could make that comment and a non-racist could make it too. — Baden

Sounds logical, ok :up:

A racist could make that comment and a non-racist could make it too. — Baden

...however, doesn't the act make the racist, rather than the racist making an act?

Funny enough, even as a native speaker I had to edit that because I somewhat misphrased it the first time. There you go, ain't none of us perfect!

The reason for the act makes the racist in this case. There are lots of acts like that.

Quite a dramatic title, derived from a book by Mikhail Zygar.
The article isn't quite so dramatic, though.
Maybe mostly for Russians (in Russia) to check.

The Russian Empire Must Die
^{— Anne Applebaum · The Atlantic · Nov 14, 2022}

The reason for the act makes the racist in this case. There are lots of acts like that. — Baden

Not trying to argue against it, but I'm curious about where this leads even if it's a slight derail in here...

Can a person act as a racist, even without having a clear racist inner reasoning? Racism is easy to spot after the fact when pointed out, but don't plenty of people exist today who do racist acts, who can be considered racists by others but don't consider themselves to be it, or identify with any purely racist ideologies? For example, the parents in the movie "Get Out" aren't technically racists, but they surely are by their acts and by their way of reasoning around race. Systemic racism is all about how racism is within the system, and how people act and become racists without even knowing it themselves.

So doesn't intention or reason mean nothing if the act itself is the core thing that defines a racist? How do we know which is which within a certain case if the person conducting the act might not even remotely believe they are racist?

So if someone punches you in the face because they don't like your race, that's a racist act. If they punch you in the face just because you are really annoying them, it's not. In this case, that is the relevant analogy.

(A presumption that non-native speakers have got something wrong just because they're a non-native speaker would be a prejudice, yes. I'm not saying there's no issue there. But there's no necessary connection to racism whatsoever any more than in the above example. )