it might in fact flip the other way and be the last nail on the coffin for NATO. — Tzeentch

What history has told us with the failure and abolution of NATO's sister organizations, CENTO and SEATO, the real cause is not having any common objectives (and having revolutions, that put you against the US).

My expectation is that NATO will see a brief surge in unity as a result of the the Ukraine war — Tzeentch

Putin can still win, don't forget. If he gets that landbridge to Crimea (that he already has), he can argue it was worth it. And he can always point out that he faced the West alone, economies 40 times bigger than Russia "all attacking peaceful Russia, which then Russia victoriously defended".

A humiliating defeat might not be enough to get rid of Russian hegemonic ambitions once for all. It may set also the grounds for the next imperialist surge. Unless it brings to the dissolution of the Russian federation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_dissolution_of_Russia
But this may bring other problems to the West: the fate of the Russian federation’s nuclear stockpile, China hegemonic expansion in post-Russia federation states.
The American leadership and engagement in this war is indispensable to force Russia to back down yet the Americans, despite the rhetoric, can’t be fully trusted by the allies. Not with Biden, way less with presidents like Trump (and next elections are getting closer). If Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria definitely compromised the American reputation more in the Rest, Trump definitely compromised the American reputation more within the West. And the American contribution in the war in Ukraine looks suspiciously too slow-paced and replete with mixed-signals. For the Europeans the future looks pretty grim, especially if they are not pro-active and coordinated in building their own foreign politics (like a “new deal“ with Africa? and South America?), and more autonomous in shaping their military security.

Recently the European Council on Foreign Affairs published this paper:

United West, Divided From the Rest: Global Public Opinion One Year Into Russia's War on Ukraine


The global shift towards multilaterality is well underway, and the Ukraine war really shows how estranged NATO has become from the rest of the world, with basically every major international player outside of NATO refusing to pick sides in the conflict. — Tzeentch

Yes. The University of Cambridge’s Centre for the Future of Democracy reaches much the same worrying conclusion

On the one hand, western democracies stand more firmly than ever behind the United States. ...
However, across a vast span of countries stretching from continental Eurasia to the north and west of Africa, we find the opposite – societies that have moved closer to China and Russia over the course of the last decade. As a result, China and Russia are now narrowly ahead of the United States in their popularity among developing countries

... The real terrain of Russia’s international influence lies outside of the West.
75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% in Francophone Africa, 62% in Southeast Asia continue to view the country positively in spite of the events of this year. — Foa, R.S., Mollat, M., Isha, H., Romero-Vidal, X., Evans, D., & Klassen, A.J. 2022. “A World Divided: Russia, China and the West.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy.

Also on the topic of Europeans.

Hersh's article implicated Norway in the Nord Stream 2 sabotage. Norway is the world's third largest exporter of gas.

I'll leave it up to the forum what to do with that information.

A humiliating defeat might not be enough to get rid of Russian hegemonic ambitions once for all. — neomac

Yes, that is totally true. Especially when you are talking about Russia.

Anything can still happen. But usually failed wars don't bolster jingoism and your willingness to use force again. Usually the result is the opposite. After the Vietnam war the US wasn't eager to fight similar wars. It needed for the Cold War to end and 9/11 attacks to happen before the US was ready to go recklessly everywhere to fight "The War on Terror". Now with Afghanistan fallen and the Taliban with their Emirate back in charge, notice the absence of anyone talking about "The War on Terror".

Unless it brings to the dissolution of the Russian federation. — neomac

But note, this fear of the dissolution of Russian federation is actually the pillarstone for Russian imperialism. Catherine the Great said something very crucial when she said that in order to defend her country's border, she has to push them further. Russia always portrays itself to be the victim, even if it isn't always Napoleon or Hitler marching into their country. This is the way the Russians are fed the propaganda of their imperialism: the evil West is out to destroy Russia. We must fight back!!!

Similar reasoning is evident in Communist China too: if China would let democracy work, then "the Middle kingdom" would collapse again due to separatism. Tibet and the Muslim west would go, but perhaps also the south and the north would separate.

These fears of course forget that India, which has so many different people and ethnycities and religions, is a democracy, and isn't likely to collapse.

But this may bring other problems to the West: the fate of the Russian federation’s nuclear stockpile, China hegemonic expansion in post-Russia federation states. — neomac

But those are hypotheticals, just like the lie that if Americans withdraw from Afghanistan and leave the country to the Taliban, it will become a haven for terrorists. Well, has it?

And the American contribution in the war in Ukraine looks suspiciously too slow-paced and replete with mixed-signals. — neomac

In my view in similar line with France and Germany. It took a year for Germany to accept that other countries can give their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. So talk about dragging their feet.

For the Europeans the future looks pretty grim, especially if they are not pro-active and coordinated in building their own foreign politics (like a “new deal“ with Africa? and South America?), and more autonomous in shaping their military security. — neomac

Europe is a confederation of independent nation states and will stay that way. They basically are far happy to have the US around. Yet Trump did spook them. The idea of the US leaving was raised discussion for example in the UK. The simple thing would be: Europe would arm itself more. Even if it arming itself already with a high rate.

Just look at how much Poland is doing:

(September 19th, 2022) Poland is buying almost 1,000 tanks, more than 600 pieces of artillery and dozens of fighter jets from South Korea, in part to replace equipment donated to Ukraine to help Kyiv fight the Russian invasion, the Polish Ministry of Defense told CNN on Tuesday.

The agreement, expected to be officially announced in Poland on Wednesday, will see Warsaw purchase 980 tanks based on the South Korean K2 model, 648 self-propelled K9 armored howitzers, and 48 FA-50 fighter jets, the ministry said. It would not confirm the value of the deal.

(AP, 1st Jan 2023) Officials said Poland is the first U.S. ally in Europe to be receiving Abrams tanks. Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak signed the $1.4 billion deal at a military base in Wesola, near Warsaw. The agreement foresees the delivery of 116 M1A1 Abrams tanks with related equipment and logistics starting this year. - The deal follows last year’s agreement for the acquisition of 250 upgraded M1A2 Abrams tanks that will be delivered in the 2025-2026 time frame. Poland is also awaiting delivery of American High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and has already received Patriot missile batteries.

Poland will start to produce the HIMARS system in country.

the notion that Ukraine sans Russia will be some kind of peaceful, democratic paradise as opposed to the Orwellian nightmare of Russian puppetry is completely without merit. — Isaac

Indeed. The notion that any country is some kind of peaceful, democratic paradise is without much merit. Nevertheless, one has to make a judgement about whether Ukraine sans Russia might be better or worse than Ukraine as Greater Russia over all, allowing that there will be winners and losers either way and that nobody knows the answer for definite to such hypotheticals. And then presumably one has to weigh that benefit or loss against the costs of a war to achieve whatever option is preferred - also incalculable except in arrears to an approximation.
There is also an incalculable risk of 'letting the aggressor profit from their crime' in encouraging others to chance many other folks' arms.

So it is not a great moral victory in any particular situation, to think the war option is not worth the cost. Opinions can legitimately differ, and nothing more than suggestive reasons can be given either way. Unless one is a pacifist non-utilitarian, and then there is no need to labour over it. Everyone lay down your arms, and if the other chap wants to kill you, that is his problem not yours. Given there is a war, the casualties are always the other chap's fault anyway, everyone agrees about that at least.

Isaac has repeatedly argued that Ukrainians are not enough of a self-identified group to say they are making a decision to act in self-defense together toward a common enemy. So anything you might refer to as "moral" on those grounds witl have to be excluded in order to be considered.

Best of luck.

Not going to link Putin's Feb 21 speech here ...

Putin is not really saying anything new, but all these old ideas are being put forward in a much more radical form. — Tatiana Stanovaya

... It's largely the trite old bullshit (in the technical sense) anyway.

«...; Nazis; we want peace; dire existential threat to Russia; "the West" is to blame for it all; Ukraine is Russian; they hate us; homosexuals begone; ...»

I am grateful to the [...] journalists, primarily war correspondents, that are risking their lives to tell the truth to the world — Putin (Feb 21, 2023)

Per earlier comments, where are the foreign/independent reports with the invading forces? I'd like to see some anyway, the more the better. Other journalists are already showing the truth to the world. As to "the teachers", "cultural figures", "pastors", ... We've seen the organized systematic (re)enculturation and oppression efforts; kind of sinister. Putin may have picked up how to speak to (some) religious folk from US politics, how to make them nod in agreement, or enough of them. It's not difficult to find people speaking Kremlin outside of Russia, it's more difficult to find people speaking non-Kremlin in Russia.

We also recall the Kiev regime’s vain attempts to obtain nuclear weapons — Putin (Feb 21, 2023)

By 2001 all nuclear weapons in Ukraine had been handed over to Russia; maybe they should have kept them so as to better keep land grabbers at bay? Meanwhile, another Russian neighbor is increasingly becoming a (nuclear) threat.

Putin's war efforts in Ukraine continue to create haters. Putin using it as a justification isn't really the best. He's the primary threat to Russia(ns). That's what others have to deal with / respond to. Kim Jong-un might learn/follow depending on what happens. And Moldovans are getting higher blood pressure.

:D As an aside, on Mar 21, 2022:



↑ Source (Jun 30, 2022)

Kremlin's Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation:

Putin signs decree establishing Presidential directorate for cross-border cooperation
^{— TASS · Oct 2, 2018}

At the time, Oleg Govorun was the head poncho, nowadays Alexey Filatov is (hierarchy → Dmitry Kozak → Putin). There's a bit about Filatov here (en), here (en), here (en), here (en) if anyone cares.

In 2021, their main targets switched from Georgia more to Moldova, the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine.

The "cooperation" part is a front, does not really involve working with corresponding agencies in those other countries. Some say they assess geo-political-military aims, plan covert insurgencies, political influence, applied intelligence, things like that.

Either way, looking into their role might be interesting for the so inclined. "There be dragons."

So it is not a great moral victory in any particular situation, to think the war option is not worth the cost. Opinions can legitimately differ, and nothing more than suggestive reasons can be given either way. — unenlightened

I agree. Is there something I've written which makes you think I might not? I've mainly been arguing here against the opposite view - namely that "anyone thinking war is not worth the cost must be pro-Putin and/or simply 'not understand' the facts"

I believe that continued war is not worth the price. I don't believe it because I'm pro-Putin, I don't believe it because I'm unaware of some fact. I believe it because it's one of the reasonable, rational theories presented to me by experts in their field and I choose to believe it primarily because those advocating it seem to have the least to gain from doing so, and it holds the most powerful nations to account.

You're presented with two theories, which you otherwise can't tell between; A and B. Those advocating for A stand to gain several hundred billion dollars from the pursuit of policies according to A, those advocating B stand to gain nothing but pariah-ship and contempt for advocating it, yet do so anyway.

Honestly. Which theory are you going to think is most likely to be right on its face?

Isaac has repeatedly argued that Ukrainians are not enough of a self-identified group to say they are making a decision to act in self-defense together toward a common enemy. So anything you might refer to as "moral" on those grounds witl have to be excluded in order to be considered. — Paine

Firstly, have the decency to address me if you've got something to say about me, this is an adult debating platform, not the school playground.

Secondly - to your point. unless you've got more than just puffing your cheeks to add, I don't see how this furthers the discussion you backed out of last time it was raised. On what grounds are 'The Ukrainians' {everyone with a Ukrainian passport, voting rights etc} the proper moral group to consult on the matter of the future of Donbas/Crimea? Why not {everyone who lives in Donbas/Crimea}? Why not {everyone within 100 miles of Donbas/Crimea}? Why not {everyone who'll face severe hardships from the decision either way - everyone with 'skin in the game'}?

No one has yet given a single reason why 'The Ukrainians' ought be the unit of moral decision-making about the future of Donbas and Crimea.

They are, of course, the default pragmatic unit of decision-making (that being how democracy works), but democratically made decisions are not automatically morally right, and we're under no obligation to agree with or support them outside of that democratic unit. France needn't support England's brexit choice. It might have to lump it, but it doesn't have to like it, or help us with it. The mere fact that it was democratically decided by an appropriate unit of decision-making doesn't render it a moral obligation for others.

Even if a majority of Ukrainians want to continue to fight for the regions currently held by Russia (and that's a big 'if' without any proper democratic facilities in place), it does not follow that we're morally obliged to help them pursue that goal. They can be wrong.

You're presented with two theories, which you otherwise can't tell between A and B. Those advocating for A stand to gain several hundred billion dollars from the pursuit of policies according to A, those advocating B stand to gain nothing but pariah-ship and contempt for advocating it, yet do so anyway. — Isaac

A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B and calling "bollocks" and "bullshit" thinking otherwise. But they are doing it for a good cause, the Ukrainians' well being, which they know much better than the Ukrainians themselves. And that's no virtue signaling by no means. From Russia, with love.

A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B. — neomac

Your idea of pariahship is having people engage with you in page-long discussions? :chin:

I'm sorry the forum isn't your personal echo chamber, I guess.

Your idea of pariahship is having people engage with you in page-long discussions? :chin:

I'm sorry the forum isn't your personal echo chamber, I guess. — Tzeentch

I don't see the relation of your comment with what I wrote which was about taking position and its costs.
Besides if I'm engaging with other people who think differently from me, how am I in an echo chamber?
That's a philosophy forum, so I guess if people provide arguments and question each other's arguments with arguments, it should be welcomed. If you do not feel like playing this game with me, don't do it. No hard feelings.

if people provide arguments and question each other's arguments with arguments, it should be welcomed. — neomac

Where was the argument in...

A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B. But they are doing it for a good cause, the Ukrainians' well being, which they know much better than the Ukrainians themselves. And that's no virtue signaling by no means. From Russia, with love. — neomac

...?

Because it sounds like a weak attempt at sarcasm, followed by a lame cliché about anyone not cheerleading the war being pro-Russia.

Where was the argument in... — Isaac

I didn't claim that I or anybody should provide only arguments and counter-arguments.

Because it sounds like a weak attempt at sarcasm, followed by a lame cliché about anyone not cheerleading the war being pro-Russia. — Isaac

As lame as your attempts at calling opposing views "cheerleading the war", "bollokcs" and "bullshit". Serving you your own "sarcastic" soup.

As lame as your attempts at calling opposing views "cheerleading the war", "bollokcs" and "bullshit". Serving you your own "sarcastic" soup. — neomac

The difference is, I'm not the one claiming this is all about rational debate like some rules-based chess game. This is politics. It's your hypocrisy I'm pointing out. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that politics is at least partly rhetorical and so comes along with "cheerleader", "warmonger" and other pejorative terms. I believe in what I think is right and believe in it quite strongly. I've made no bones about that.

I'm simply pointing out to you that your claim of dispassionate, rational, chess-grandmaster "weighing of the evidence" is preformatively contradicted by your use of pejorative rhetoric. I have no such contradiction because I've never claimed my analysis to be dispassionate in the first place.

I'm not the one claiming this is all about rational debate like some rules-based chess game. This is politics. It's your hypocrisy I'm pointing out. — Isaac

I'm simply pointing out to you that your claim of dispassionate, rational, chess-grandmaster "weighing of the evidence" is preformatively contradicted by your use of pejorative rhetoric. — Isaac

I claimed nowhere that I’m dispassionate nor that a rational debate should be dispassionate.
Even in playing basketball or chess one can be passionate, especially if the opponent cheats or plays lazily.
I’m not even questioning the fact that our moral/political views are motivating our engagement in such political discussions, colouring our communicative style, pressing us for certain conclusions.
However the fun part to me is mainly to play by argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. Besides since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum, we can more easily end up discussing our conceptual frameworks, our terminology, our beliefs’ inferential or explanatory power, etc. and this in turn can help not fix the world, but fix (clarify/reorder/clean up) one self’s ideas about the world.
Where is the hypocrisy in all this exactly?

But usually failed wars don't bolster jingoism and your willingness to use force again. Usually the result is the opposite. After the Vietnam war the US wasn't eager to fight similar wars. It needed for the Cold War to end and 9/11 attacks to happen before the US was ready to go recklessly everywhere to fight "The War on Terror". Now with Afghanistan fallen and the Taliban with their Emirate back in charge, notice the absence of anyone talking about "The War on Terror". — ssu

Sure, that sounds plausible, at least in the short term. But even in the short term, as long as the Russian political and military elites are the same along with their powerful triggers (fighting for hegemonic survival and perception of a “declining” West), they may still try to compensate or come back against the West in other forms, increasing control over strategic areas (in the mediterranean, North Africa and Middle East), reinforcing the anti-West alliance, by fostering instability within the West, and connive with rogue American politicians (if not presidents).

But note, this fear of the dissolution of Russian federation is actually the pillarstone for Russian imperialism. Catherine the Great said something very crucial when she said that in order to defend her country's border, she has to push them further. Russia always portrays itself to be the victim, even if it isn't always Napoleon or Hitler marching into their country. This is the way the Russians are fed the propaganda of their imperialism: the evil West is out to destroy Russia. We must fight back!!!

Similar reasoning is evident in Communist China too: if China would let democracy work, then "the Middle kingdom" would collapse again due to separatism. Tibet and the Muslim west would go, but perhaps also the south and the north would separate.

These fears of course forget that India, which has so many different people and ethnycities and religions, is a democracy, and isn't likely to collapse. — ssu

Not sure to what extent this comparison is useful. Russia and China didn’t experience established Western-like democratic institutions to effectively channel ethnic grievances. So the transition to a more democratic regime might more easily support separatist movements wherever the relation between ethnic groups is diverging or has been historically tense if not dramatic. See the case of ex-Yugoslavia.
Even in India authoritarianism has been on the rise for a while now (https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/indias-endangered-democracy/) and national unity crisis has been called out by Indian intellectuals (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-facing-collapse-of-nation-crisis-amartya-sen/articleshow/92583017.cms).

But those are hypotheticals, just like the lie that if Americans withdraw from Afghanistan and leave the country to the Taliban, it will become a haven for terrorists. Well, has it? — ssu

There are reasons to be optimistic, I’m not questioning this. But strategic thinking has to deal with hypotheticals, and taking into account the worst scenarios given certain realistic circumstances is part of the task.

In my view in similar line with France and Germany. — ssu

But in their case the reason is clearer and more relatable (if you are a Western European). The benefit/cost delta of this war may be more positive for the US and the Eastern Europeans, than for the Western Europeans, at least in the short term. And in the long term there are lots of unknowns.

argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. — neomac

Intriguing.

What are these rules? Can you enumerate a few?

What are these rules? Can you enumerate a few? — Isaac

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

I should have had you pegged for a 'fallacy-o-phile.

A couple of questions...

Do you think those with whom you're arguing would agree that their propositions succumb to these fallacies?

If not, to what do you then appeal when arguing that they, in fact, do? More fallacies? Fallacy fallacies?

And then, when we disagree about the fallacy fallacies? Fallacy fallacy fallacies, perhaps?

I should have had you pegged for a 'fallacy-o-phile.

A couple of questions...
Do you think those with whom you're arguing would agree that their propositions succumb to these fallacies? — Isaac

To the extant I and my opponent share the same argumentative rules, we must converge about how we apply them too. So if I claim he failed or my opponent rejects the charge, it must be shown through the shared argumentative rule who is right.
For example you recently accused me of strawmanning you, but I argued that I wasn't strawmanning you: if you make a general claim X but intend to refer specifically to Y, and I don't get what you are referring to (I even told you so), so I can just argue against X, you can not accuse me of strawmanning you, because I'm still arguing against your actual claims, not something different.

If not, to what do you then appeal when arguing that they, in fact, do? More fallacies? Fallacy fallacies? And then, when we disagree about the fallacy fallacies? Fallacy fallacy fallacies, perhaps? — Isaac

Shared rules are necessary to work out differences intelligibly. So if we disagree on some argumentative rule application, at best we can try to work it out through more basic rules (like our conceptual framework). At worst we remain unintelligible.
For example, as far as I've understood, you accused me of "hypocrisy" based on the idea that I'm advocating for "dispassionate" contributions, while I myself am not contributing "dispassionately". But I'm not claiming to offer dispassionate contributions nor advocating for dispassionate contributions nor implying or suggesting in favor of "dispassionate" contributions. So either that's settled and you must agree, or you must offer a compelling argument against my objection: e.g. quote where I solicited people to offer dispassionate arguments or claimed I'm offering dispassionate arguments or implied or arguably suggested in favor of "dispassionate" contributions, and see if it is compelling enough to accuse me of hypocrisy.

Isaac has repeatedly argued that Ukrainians are not enough of a self-identified group to say they are making a decision to act in self-defense together toward a common enemy. So anything you might refer to as "moral" on those grounds witl have to be excluded in order to be considered. — Paine

Such arguments have as much force as one wants them to have. A group's right to self determination has, necessarily, to be allowed before it can be even tested. My declaration of unilateral independence for Chez unenlightened has been studiously ignored by the UK government despite the unanimous vote of a 100% turnout in a free and fair referendum. It is an outrage, and I am asking for your donations of arms so that we can defend our small country, particularly from the invasion of foreign goats. Poor Scotland has been refused permission to even having a referendum, but I was smart enough not to ask.

Stable borders are the pre-requisite of a democracy and they therefore cannot be established democratically.

Moldova is a small blotch on Putin's map, except not white+blue+red enough.

Besides, Putin's Russia pushing up against Moldova looks great on a map; Transnistria is already in the process of being "converted" (vaguely similar to Donbas). — May 9, 2022

«We, Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia, can't have weapons of mass destruction pointed our way sitting on our doorstep. Should actions toward that come to pass, we'd have to take counter-measures. And in case of threats from non-democratic regimes, more decisive measures.» — Oct 13, 2022

Opinion: Moldova isn’t on the front page, but it could be in Putin’s crosshairs
^{— Cristian Gherasim · CNN · Feb 15, 2023} — Feb 16, 2023

Moldova president accuses Russia of plotting to oust pro-EU government
^{— Jennifer Rankin · The Guardian · Feb 13, 2023}
Decree on measures to implement the foreign policy course is declared invalid (Russian)
^{— The Kremlin · Feb 21, 2023}
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 21, 2023 No. 111 / On recognizing as invalid the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 605 / On measures to implement the foreign policy of the Russian Federation (Russian)
^{— Official Internet portal of legal information · Kremlin · Feb 21, 2023}
Putin cancels decree underpinning Moldova's sovereignty in separatist conflict
^{— Alexander Tanas · Reuters · Feb 21, 2023}
The World Has Gotten a Little More Dangerous
^{— Daniel McIntosh · Medium · Feb 23, 2023}

Ends when Putin says so or is compelled to? Doesn't?

If your Chez is actually attacked, and you choose to fight the attackers, that could reasonably be called self-defense. As a concept, that is not co-extensive with the question of boundaries, but neither are the ideas mutually exclusive of each.

If your Chez is actually attacked, and you choose to fight the attackers, that could reasonably be called self-defense. — Paine

I think it would be called "resisting arrest" by the enemy. and I think they would call my UDI illegitimate. This is the difficulty that you do not seem to have grasped - my neighbours have an interest and a claim to be consulted over their national borders, that I have created without consulting them.

Are you likening that to Russia hankering for Kiev without consulting them?

. So the transition to a more democratic regime might more easily support separatist movements wherever the relation between ethnic groups is diverging or has been historically tense if not dramatic. — neomac

This is the fear just what both China and Russia have about democracy in a nutshell.

A country with various ethnicities and people is difficult to sustain. But it is possible. One successful way is to create an entity in which all belong. With England it was the creation of the term "British". The Scots and the Welsh are also "British". The Russian Empire didn't have that, but then with the Bolshevik Revolution you did get a common entity of everybody being "Soviet". Yet that Soviet Union, didn't last.

So if I claim he failed or my opponent rejects the charge, it must be shown through the shared argumentative rule who is right. — neomac

And what prevents anyone from rejecting that 'showing', why are they suddenly compelled by your second judgement when they weren't by your first?