Tanks

[fides' Jack]

On 3/17/2023 at 11:09 PM, Norseman82 said:

It refers to one "anonymous source":  

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/10/hersh-nord-stream-sabotage 

More corrobation would be needed.

Sorry, snopes is no longer credible as a check as to what is fact or fiction.

 

On 3/17/2023 at 10:41 PM, Norseman82 said:

If they were sincere about averting a world war, they would never have attacked Ukraine in the first place. 

That statement is ignorant about the history of Ukraine and its relationship to Russia, and also ignorant of the crimes that Ukraine has been guilty of (while in bed with the US).

Even so - I'm not saying Russia was right to attack them.  I'm just saying I don't know enough about the situation to support either side of this.  It seems to me every side is wrong.

[Nunsuch]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Sorry, snopes is no longer credible as a check as to what is fact or fiction.

 

That statement is ignorant about the history of Ukraine and its relationship to Russia, and also ignorant of the crimes that Ukraine has been guilty of (while in bed with the US).

Even so - I'm not saying Russia was right to attack them.  I'm just saying I don't know enough about the situation to support either side of this.  It seems to me every side is wrong.

So you "don't know enough about the situation to support either side," but you still make categorical and absolute statements? Why am I not surprised--or surprised about what you say regarding Snopes? I should have known better than to try to engage rationally.

[little2add]

You do realize that two and a half years after the Bay of Pigs , JFK  was he shot in the head in a parade in Dallas

And then there’s the whole Vietnam thing

[KnightofChrist]

Snopes does lean Left politically, according to All sides. 

"June 2021 Independent Review: Snopes Moved to Lean Left

AllSides moved Snopes' rating to Lean Left following a June 2021 independent review by AllSides editors on the left, center and right. It was previously rated Center.

We reviewed the numerous instances of Snopes' left-wing bias that we found during our June 2020 Editorial Review, such as slant. We also noted a number of times that Snopes had recently interpreted things in favor of the left, including when it "fact checked" a subjective opinion on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), when it defended Gov. Andrew Cuomo by saying an accurate tweet about him was "Mostly False," and when it "fact-checked" satire from humor website The Babylon Bee (an entry Snopes then had to edit following criticism).

AllSides noted that Snopes' story choice is generally favorable to the left, and it lacks fact checks on subjects that speak to a conservative or more right-wing audience. Its collections page also showed left bias, with the first page still predominantly highlighting Trump.

At the time, AllSides also noted that RealClearPolitics' Fact Check Review found that 89% of Snopes articles from January 27, 2021 to June 26, 2021 used at least one media source as verification for its claims, rather than using original sources. The percentage "captures how many claims by [the] fact checker relied at least in part on media reporting as “truth” for its verification task," RCP writes. "When fact checkers rely on media for verification, this creates a cycle in which media cite fact checkers which in turn cite media. Ideally, fact checking should involve primary source verification, rather than relying on secondary news reporting as verification." "

Source: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/snopes

 

[Didacus]

Snopes should check that claim!

[fides' Jack]

 

On 3/21/2023 at 5:44 PM, Nunsuch said:

So you "don't know enough about the situation to support either side," but you still make categorical and absolute statements? Why am I not surprised--or surprised about what you say regarding Snopes? I should have known better than to try to engage rationally.

Correct, I don't know enough to support either side.  I do know enough to know that Russia's actions can't be summarily regarded as wrong, and I also know enough to know that the US is likely just as guilty as Russia is.

On 3/16/2023 at 12:29 PM, Nunsuch said:

And that is my final word here. There is no point in trying to reason with someone who says something as obviously incorrect as this.

So I guess that wasn't your final word then.  You had to come back and insult me some more.

Look, I get it.  You don't like me.  And rather than engage with opposing viewpoints, you'd rather attack me personally and say, repeatedly, that you're not going to engage in the conversation with me.

You consider me ignorant and irrational.  You've made that clear over and over again.  Honestly, I think if you'd try to get to know me you'd find there are things about me that you like, and maybe you'd even start to at least understand my perspective on things, and why I'm so passionate about what I believe, even if you don't agree with me.

In my last statement, I didn't say, "I don't know much at all about what's going on over in Russia."  I said I don't know enough to pick one side over the other.  But I also implied that neither does anyone else here, or at least that was the intended implication.  People who are pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia in this whole mess are only parroting the media-led public opinion.

[Nunsuch]

9 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

 

Correct, I don't know enough to support either side.  I do know enough to know that Russia's actions can't be summarily regarded as wrong, and I also know enough to know that the US is likely just as guilty as Russia is.

So I guess that wasn't your final word then.  You had to come back and insult me some more.

Look, I get it.  You don't like me.  And rather than engage with opposing viewpoints, you'd rather attack me personally and say, repeatedly, that you're not going to engage in the conversation with me.

You consider me ignorant and irrational.  You've made that clear over and over again.  Honestly, I think if you'd try to get to know me you'd find there are things about me that you like, and maybe you'd even start to at least understand my perspective on things, and why I'm so passionate about what I believe, even if you don't agree with me.

In my last statement, I didn't say, "I don't know much at all about what's going on over in Russia."  I said I don't know enough to pick one side over the other.  But I also implied that neither does anyone else here, or at least that was the intended implication.  People who are pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia in this whole mess are only parroting the media-led public opinion.

I don't consider you ignorant--I don't even know you. But I do consider you as someone who tends to prooftext sources, accepting the validity of those which reinforce your preconceptions and dismissing those which challenge them. On the other hand, why there are people on this board who do know a fair amount about what they comment on. The fact that you dismiss their expertise--or even the possibility that they *have* expertise--makes it difficult to take you seriously. To put it another way: I have taught at the university level literally for decades. If you submitted work to me or my colleagues that took this approach to evidence, you would not be happy with the outcomes.

[Didacus]

I forget what this thread was originally about...  something about tanks... right?

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Didacus said:

I forget what this thread was originally about...  something about tanks... right?

Maybe, but now it's about how Professor Nunsuch will be helping Jack get his doctorate in Proper Internet Discussion and Discord. The first 14 years will consist of two gruelling 14 hour lectures each day listing all the many ways she can't take him seriously. 

[Didacus]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:51 PM, KnightofChrist said:

Maybe, but now it's about how Professor Nunsuch will be helping Jack get his doctorate in Proper Internet Discussion and Discord. The first 14 years will consist of two gruelling 14 hour lectures each day listing all the many ways she can't take him seriously. 

Good luck Jack!

Remember - persistence has its rewards!

[little2add]

U.K. officials: Russia taking heavy losses with minor gains in latest Donetsk fighting

 

 

[fides' Jack]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:48 AM, Nunsuch said:

But I do consider you as someone who tends to prooftext sources, accepting the validity of those which reinforce your preconceptions and dismissing those which challenge them.

I suppose there's a lot of that going around.  In my defense, Snopes was shown to be biased by a 3rd party.

On 3/24/2023 at 10:48 AM, Nunsuch said:

The fact that you dismiss their expertise--or even the possibility that they *have* expertise--makes it difficult to take you seriously.

It depends on the person, the subject, and their claims.  Yes, I will outright state that any person on this board who has a degree in theology and yet does NOT condemn the transgender ideology lacks expertise in the area of theology (as well as basic biology).  I don't care what their paper says.

I am a man who believes in truth, even when that truth doesn't shine very well on myself or my own beliefs.  If anyone had proof or even just strong enough evidence regarding any of their claims on this board that I disagree with, I would change my opinion.  I've certainly changed my opinion and my perspective on a number of issues based on what other posters have brought up on this board.

But, as someone who has taught at the university level for a long period of time, you know as well as I do that statistics never constitute proof - as a matter of logic.  As I've stated before, much of "science" these days has become nothing more than manipulating statistics.  And the only arguments brought by those who disagree with me on several matters of importance on this board are arguments by statistics, and arguments by authority, neither of which can be considered "proof".  If a person of supposed expertise in a subject relies on these kinds of arguments, or who make statements that are obviously in contradiction with their supposed expertise (see example above), their expertise is, in my view, in question.

To put this on the other foot, I would say, having perused some of the vocations threads (which appear to me to be more active than open mic), that you seem to have a great deal of knowledge of female religious institutions - much more so than I.  I would tend to trust your opinions on those.  If we are both still members of PM when my daughters are of age, I might very well seek out that knowledge.

On 3/27/2023 at 6:21 AM, Didacus said:

Remember - persistence has its rewards!

I with that were true of discussions on internet forums.

[Didacus]

Persistence is like violence.

If it doesn't work, it means you aren't using enough of it.

[BarbTherese]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:56 AM, fides' Jack said:

It seems to me every side is wrong.

...........just not necessarily for reasons posted...........I think Putin did think the Russian invasion of the Ukraine would be a victory for Russia very quickly.  I think Putin wanted victory not another world war while he has put the world into this position.  I think too that the US, like the whole west, owes Ukraine much more than tanks - like boots on the ground.

It is true that Ukrainian military did shocking war crimes in WW2, but then we would be naive to think only Ukraine was guilty of war crimes in the west during WW2.

Edited March 31, 2023 by BarbTherese

[fides' Jack]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:15 PM, BarbTherese said:

I think too that the US, like the whole west, owes Ukraine much more than tanks - like boots on the ground.

Wow, that's a strong statement.  If that happened it would be, effectively, WWIII.  

I'm curious what makes you think that we owe Ukraine anything?  Do you mean, we owe them because we have a debt to them, or do you think it's more about morals - we owe them because it's the right thing to do?