Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LordofHats wrote: I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...
The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.
The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.
Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!
ulgurstasta wrote: It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs
There's certainly an issue with selective sourcing of information, and it is always easier to see it in others than in ourselves. But that's a general issue, while this is a very specific form of information warfare - spamming constant stories that are partly or mostly lies, and using multiple platforms to spread them so that any kind of truthful reporting gets lost amidst not just among false stories, but amidst endless debunking of the false stories.
Iron_Captain wrote: I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.
You've missed the point completely, again. For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Defeating disinformation campaigns isn’t about putting faith in one ideological camp or another. That’s the aim of the disinformation campaign, to get people to give up on believing they can have any idea of what the truth is, so they might as well just accept their own government’s position, or at worst give up on having any view on the issue at all.
Actually defeating these campaigns requires people to take note of which sources routinely make gak up and just stop listening to those sources. What that will leave is a collection of sources that won't be perfect, that might get some facts wrong and might have a slanted POV, but that can be used in aggregate to form some kind of overall picture of what is really happening.
For some reason you are pretending that isn’t possible. It’s fairly obvious why.
You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense.
I'm not starting it up again, because there’s no debate to had. It never should have gone on for as long as it did the first time around. You made a silly claim about Crimea because you had no idea the region was more than just the sea port region, and then you refused to admit you screwed up for pages after that. If anyone is interested they can go and read the thread themselves in that thread.
I mentioned it so that anyone who isn't you that might be reading this could note that what you're doing here in this thread isn't a once off, it is how you operate. They can use that information do decide how they want to engage with you from here on.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
ulgurstasta wrote: It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs
There's certainly an issue with selective sourcing of information, and it is always easier to see it in others than in ourselves. But that's a general issue, while this is a very specific form of information warfare - spamming constant stories that are partly or mostly lies, and using multiple platforms to spread them so that any kind of truthful reporting gets lost amidst not just among false stories, but amidst endless debunking of the false stories.
Iron_Captain wrote: I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.
You've missed the point completely, again. For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past. Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
sebster wrote: Defeating disinformation campaigns isn’t about putting faith in one ideological camp or another. That’s the aim of the disinformation campaign, to get people to give up on believing they can have any idea of what the truth is, so they might as well just accept their own government’s position, or at worst give up on having any view on the issue at all.
Actually defeating these campaigns requires people to take note of which sources routinely make gak up and just stop listening to those sources. What that will leave is a collection of sources that won't be perfect, that might get some facts wrong and might have a slanted POV, but that can be used in aggregate to form some kind of overall picture of what is really happening.
The funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions (since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself). Every media in existence has a bias, and some media are more active and obvious in pushing their bias, that is true. While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
sebster wrote: For some reason you are pretending that isn’t possible. It’s fairly obvious why.
Obvious? Not at all I am afraid. At least not to me myself. Please enlighten me.
You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense.
I'm not starting it up again,
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
No, now you are doing it again. You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea. That is why this whole thing got started in the first place.
sebster wrote: because you had no idea the region was more than just the sea port region, and then you refused to admit you screwed up for pages after that. If anyone is interested they can go and read the thread themselves in that thread.
I was born on Crimea... Do you really think I did not know that Crimea is more than a sea port? Maybe people should indeed go read that thread (if they really want to waste their time). They would see that in my third post or such of that argument I am already explaining that Crimea has different regions, and so they would see that you are once again posting a blatant lie here. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are the one who refuses to admit you screwed up. Again, you said that Crimea is an economic backwater. I present several arguments that show the contrary. You bring up some counter-arguments to refute them. I point out that your arguments are incorrect because they rely on data pulled out of context. You ignore that and fall back on ad hominem and straw man attacks, even going so far as to continuing about it in an entirely unrelated thread.
sebster wrote: I mentioned it so that anyone who isn't you that might be reading this could note that what you're doing here in this thread isn't a once off, it is how you operate. They can use that information do decide how they want to engage with you from here on.
It is good that you did it, because by doing so you also showed the way in which you operate. This discussion is not on topic and I think we are done talking to each other now, but let me give a good tip for your next discussion: Stick to arguments and don't start with ad hominem or other fallacious arguments. That is not nice, and is highly likely to result in animosity, which in turn could devolve into mudslinging and locked threads. Nobody wants that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 17:41:15
LordofHats wrote: I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...
The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.
The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.
Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!
Awwww damn XD
Well Churchill did say. Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Thr country always been a place of both intrest and confusion both benign and plain dangerously wrong.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Iron_Captain wrote: [
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are the one who refuses to admit you screwed up. Again, you said that Crimea is an economic backwater. I present several arguments that show the contrary. You bring up some counter-arguments to refute them. I point out that your arguments are incorrect because they rely on data pulled out of context. You ignore that and fall back on ad hominem and straw man attacks, even going so far as to continuing about it in an entirely unrelated thread.
Welcome to Dakka.
And IIRC our discussion of the history of the region was pretty much the only positive thing to come out of that discussion, which I thought about yesterday while tooling around in the Krasnyi Krym in World of Warships.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Iron_Captain wrote: Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past.
Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
You still don't get it. Trying to get information from both sides is a horrible way of approaching this, because that makes the awful assumption that all media sources are equal, and that they all have some element of truth in them. That plainly isn't true. Many sources blatantly lie, many others twist tiny facts in order to serve their agenda or ideology.
By pretending that isn't true, but refusing to shut off dishonest and unreliable sources, you open yourself up to manipulation by disinformation campaigns. Which is excatly why you found yourself aping the message those disinformation campaigns hope to place in the audience.
[quoteThe funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions
No, it depends on fething facts. Sometimes those facts are hard to come by, and some times we might get some facts wrong, but it remains the only way to reach actual truth.
(since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself)
bs. For starters eye witness accounts are not completely reliable. Then there are many other methods of discerning the facts of an event, to verify, expand upon or possibly reject the accounts of eye witness reports. This is why history isn't just a long list of first hand accounts.
While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
Gathering information from a wide variety of sources is only valuable if you apply critical reasoning to each source, and that process of critical reasoning includes discarding sources that are unreliable or dubious in their claims.
Obvious? Not at all I am afraid. At least not to me myself. Please enlighten me.
You have a political slant, and you aren't inclined to accept its limitations.
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
You took it as an invite to start it up again, but it wasn't intended as such. I didn't even consider the possibility that you would want to drag yourself through that humiliation again. I got that wrong.
You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea.
Here's your original claim;
Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine
And here's what you walked that back to after four pages of me explaining to you that you were wrong;
The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole...
It went from being one of the most powerful economic regions to being average, if we exclude the actually rich parts. And when I pointed out how you'd changed your argument, you ended up saying;
When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
So in other words, when I wrote Crimea was an economic backwater, you replied by countering that the bits of Crimea that you choose to think of aren't by themselves, therefore that can't be said about the whole region.
So yeah. Look, I didn't want to start this up again, and still don't. I've taken part in enough puppy kicking exercises in my time on the internet, and don't see any value in doing it to you as well. So just stop. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistakes about Crimea, and stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistatements on media and what sources should be trusted. Maybe instead just take a step back, stop trying to give opinions and just read what others have to say. You will learn things.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Iron_Captain wrote: Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past.
Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
You still don't get it. Trying to get information from both sides is a horrible way of approaching this, because that makes the awful assumption that all media sources are equal, and that they all have some element of truth in them. That plainly isn't true. Many sources blatantly lie, many others twist tiny facts in order to serve their agenda or ideology.
sebster wrote:For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
sebster wrote: By pretending that isn't true, but refusing to shut off dishonest and unreliable sources, you open yourself up to manipulation by disinformation campaigns. Which is excatly why you found yourself aping the message those disinformation campaigns hope to place in the audience.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three. I am not saying you should value sources that are blatantly lying as much as those that are attempting to give an honest (if inevitably biased one way or the other) report. Far from it. The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not. This is why you should take in account all sources, even if you do not assign the same values to all of them, because it is only in very rare cases that you can actually distinguish lies from facts. Especially if you shut of all sources that express the viewpoints of one side in an issue because that makes you extremely vulnerable to being manipulated by the other side. I guess there is no real problem with excluding some sources you really distrust. But do make sure your sources remain balanced and do not skew to one 'side' or one particular political or ideological point of view.
sebster wrote: [quoteThe funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions
No, it depends on fething facts. Sometimes those facts are hard to come by, and some times we might get some facts wrong, but it remains the only way to reach actual truth.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
(since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself)
bs. For starters eye witness accounts are not completely reliable. Then there are many other methods of discerning the facts of an event, to verify, expand upon or possibly reject the accounts of eye witness reports. This is why history isn't just a long list of first hand accounts.
Aye, good point. Not even first-hand accounts or seeing things for yourself is completely reliable in discovering the truth of things (which is probably why so many philosopers think there actually isn't such a thing as 'truth' in the first place). History and current events are pretty similar actually, in both we have to rely on combining the stories of others to create a story of what might have happened.
While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
Gathering information from a wide variety of sources is only valuable if you apply critical reasoning to each source, and that process of critical reasoning includes discarding sources that are unreliable or dubious in their claims.
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
You took it as an invite to start it up again, but it wasn't intended as such. I didn't even consider the possibility that you would want to drag yourself through that humiliation again. I got that wrong.
Regardless of intentions, you did start it up again.
You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea.
Here's your original claim;
Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine
And here's what you walked that back to after four pages of me explaining to you that you were wrong;
The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole...
It went from being one of the most powerful economic regions to being average, if we exclude the actually rich parts. And when I pointed out how you'd changed your argument, you ended up saying;
When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
So in other words, when I wrote Crimea was an economic backwater, you replied by countering that the bits of Crimea that you choose to think of aren't by themselves, therefore that can't be said about the whole region.
So yeah. Look, I didn't want to start this up again, and still don't. I've taken part in enough puppy kicking exercises in my time on the internet, and don't see any value in doing it to you as well. So just stop. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistakes about Crimea, and stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistatements on media and what sources should be trusted. Maybe instead just take a step back, stop trying to give opinions and just read what others have to say. You will learn things.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement). You then tried to back up your claim by providing numbers that were not only taken wildly out of context, but also actually excluded Sevastopol. Your statement was an incorrect generalisation. You stated that Crimea was an economic backwater. However, Crimea consists of many different areas. While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not. Most of the rest of the discussion was just me trying to explain this to you, not me walking back on any claims as you seem to have interpreted it. Anyways, your claim that 'Crimea' is an economic backwater is wrong. The Crimea as a whole was above average - average in its economic performance relative to the other areas of Ukraine. The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine. You could have argued that that means that it still is a total economic backwater compared to the rest of Europe, and you'd be totally right. But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
Some people recognise it when a cause is lost and give up. Some people just keep defending a lost cause anyway until the last. You evidently fall into that last category. I respect that, but I would like to urge you to see reason now and admit that your original statement was wrong, and that the rest of this whole discussion between us is built on nothing but misunderstanding.
Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port
Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....
I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.
It's on the other side of the Bosporus, which is pretty important. Russia-Turkish relations have very often not been positive, so having a naval base IN the Mediterranean is a huge thing, as that strait can be closed to Russian military (or sea trade) traffic at any time.
Yeah, in a straight line, it isn't that far. In terms of strategic importance, it's huge.
He joined them, got a kid out there, somewhere.
OK, he enlisted with IS, he made the decision, and not a small or insignificant one to go to Syria,a foreign nation in civil war.
Obviously was a radical before hand or sympathetic to go put there. Far ernough to actively travel there.
So why should UK or Canada take him back. Sounds a danger to me.
Theres the German 16 year old but the Iraq courts are refusing to extradite her as yet and want to try her for being a member and terrorist.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Let Iraq try her. It should serve as a strong deterrent to other European citizens against travelling abroad to join terrorist organisations. If you commit war crimes and acts of terror in a foreign country, there should be no going back back to your home country. You will be tried, convicted and imprisoned in the country you helped terrorise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/29 14:22:47
By imprisoned you mean executed, I assume you mean.
I'm sure Iraq isn't going to be keeping radicals in a jail to be freed the next time they get pushed back.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
I'm sure Iraq isn't going to be keeping radicals in a jail to be freed the next time they get pushed back.
Long as you got a fair trial, I am OK with that. You join ISIS willingly and perpetrate their atrocities, suffer the consequences.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
I'm sure Iraq isn't going to be keeping radicals in a jail to be freed the next time they get pushed back.
Long as you got a fair trial, I am OK with that. You join ISIS willingly and perpetrate their atrocities, suffer the consequences.
They joined a terror state. Don t be too Suprised when they treat you as a terrorist. As Iraq said themselves, a teanager is old enough to be responsible for actions.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/29 18:04:36
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
A terror state conformed In status by the UN. US, in law in dozens of nations and declared enemy of many allied nations.
They comoted slavery. Genocide. Rape, looting and oppression on a daily basis and was a considered a enemy of all western and free people's.
There fighters would of shot you in head without a thought. If you where lucky. They where Barbarians who deserved there fate, to be pounder, broken and driven from there cities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/29 18:17:58
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'.
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'.
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
Not sure how to write what UK did to Canada applies to those who join declared enemies of freedom, West and general terrorists.
ISIS are one of the most barbaric and brutal terror groups to rise in a very long time.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
Why stop there? I'm still pissed off with the Normans for invading and replacing our English aristocracy.
And don't even get me started on the fething Romans.
...
This is a reductio ad absurdum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/29 22:23:07
Not sure how to write what UK did to Canada applies to those who join declared enemies of freedom, West and general terrorists.
Well, Nazis most definitely qualify as those things, and the UK was hot to have the Canadians hang more of them, regardless of actual guilt. You can imagine how well it went.
Not actually a legal term, and not actually confirmed by anyone. ISIS was a state sponsor of terrorism, a category that also includes France and the United States. 'Terrorism' itself is very loosely defined legally in most nations and internationally. The US basically has a system where anyone is a terrorist if they say so.
There fighters would of shot you in head without a thought. If you where lucky. They where Barbarians who deserved there fate, to be pounder, broken and driven from there cities.
But the guys who used poison gas on innocent civilians were A-OK! Fighting them would be horrible!
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of certain posters positions is not 'blaming them'. In fact, that many of you decided to go with personal attacks like this one rather proves my point, being that the very idea of any of these people getting a fair trial is ludicrous.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Iron_Captain wrote: Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
You keep pretending it is some impossible thing to view and read media reports and apply judgement to their reliability. It isn't. It is what people do constantly. They don't always do it perfectly, but pretending that it can't be done at all is utter nonsense.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three.
The problem with your worldview is that your claim above is absolute and total trash. No report is perfect, many contain errors, but that doesn't make them propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign. To be propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign requires intent on the part of the creator to deceive/confuse the reader. They are distinct things and it is generally very easy to tell from actual reporting.
The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not.
Everyone will get it wrong from time to time, accepting something that's at least partially false, or rejecting something that is accurate. But we don't need to reach perfection here. If people on the whole just cut out the blatant junk the debate would vastly improve from where it is today.
It's like you're pointing out that really healthy eating is complex and difficult to perfect, so we shouldn't say anything about people eating McDonalds twice a day and brushing their teeth with coca cola.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
This is really just repeating the same argument. You keep repeating that it's hard to determine all the facts of an issue. That's true, but achieving a level where people are actually debating the difficult to achieve facts would be such a massive improvement that we should be ecstatic if we moved half way to reaching that point.
There was a cricket match concluded yesterday, at the end Western Australia set Tasmania a challenged 360 run target, and Tassie collapsed, being dismissed for their lowest score in their history in the competition and losing by 300 runs. There is a discussion going on as to whether the pitch became more difficult for batsmen, or whether WA's class bowling line up finally clicked in to gear, or whether Tassie panicked and then folded. The truth is debatable and no-one will ever know for sure. But we do know it wasn't because Hillary Clinton bribed Putin to pressure George Bailey to throw the match in order to cover up that the conflict in Syria is actually a globalist plot to take guns away from god fearing Americans.
On a world stage, many people believe things in that last category. They believe them because no matter how ridiculous these ideas are, they are comforting to the reader, and therefore preferable to the challenge and complexity of reality. That's crap is polluting the debate, and attitudes like yours, that we just can't tell what is at least trying to be genuine reporting, is a huge part of the problem.
Nb: The rest of our discussion is pretty much off topic, so I put it in spoiler tags to avoid inconveniencing other people on this thread.
I'd hide stuff behind spoilers if I was in your position as well. I mean, I'd hate it if it was continually pointed out that I claimed that Crimea was one of the strongest economies in Ukraine, and then spent pages trying to back off from that. The difference between me and you is that I would have admitted my mistake.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Your phrasing is sometimes a little off, but overall your English is excellent and I say as some that has failed woefully in my efforts to learn a second language, I am quite impressed at how you consistently make your points perfectly clearly on dakka. The problem is not your English, the problem was your argument was bad.
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement).
No, you said 'especially Sevastapol'. But that's a non-argument. You can't pick out one part and say it's the only bit that should be considered. That part should be considered as part of the whole. And when you include the rest of Crimea, the whole lot drags back to being a backwater.
While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not.
Yes, but a statement that a place is an economic backwater doesn't mean no part of it is quite rich. "We are a poor family" doesn't become false if a cousin becomes a lawyer. Because you still look at the family as a whole and note that when most members are unemployed or working minimum wage, the family as a whole is poor.
The Crimea as a whole was above average
And here is again. You've retreated to the much lesser claim that the region is average, without ever admitting your early claim that the region was one of the strongest economic regions in Ukraine.
The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine.
You didn't 'specify' that region. You said 'especially'. If you specified you would have been referring just to that part only and excluding the rest of the region. But the word you used, 'especially', doesn't do that. 'Especially' means it is true of the whole region, and very true of this one bit in particular. "Western Europe is very rich, especially Germany" doesn't mean the statement is only true for Germany, it means it is true for the whole region, and particularly for Germany.
But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
No, I still stand by what I said, because it's simply fething true. I guess if you wanted to stretch things you could possibly say that my first post was generalist as it didn't note the coastal region being wealthier, but that generalisation was needed because adding it would have ruined the pacing of my joke that was all my first comment was actually meant to be. And considering when you decided to challenge that comment, and I quickly noted you were right that the coastal region was actually fairly well off (but not large enough or rich enough to offset the poverty in the rest of the region), it'd be a real stretch to call that a mistake.
Whereas you did in fact claim that the region was one of the richest in Ukraine, and it was a teethpulling exercise to get you to accept that claim was quite mistaken.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.
While I would agree Iraq might not be the best place to get a fair trial, in this case its highly unlikely that anybody will be fabricating evidence or getting false witnesses. If you're caught while fighting under ISIS colors thats pretty much all the evidence you need.
They'll hang quite deservedly, and not really anybody can dispute it.
As long as no evidence is fabricated and the judgement is made based upon the evidence, thats a fair trial.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Iron_Captain wrote: Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
You keep pretending it is some impossible thing to view and read media reports and apply judgement to their reliability. It isn't. It is what people do constantly. They don't always do it perfectly, but pretending that it can't be done at all is utter nonsense.
And here you are putting words in my mouth again. I thought I had told you to stop doing that?
I never said it can't be done at all, I am only saying that it is difficult, as should be evident from all the people believing sensationalist nonsense and crappy stories from crappy media.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three.
The problem with your worldview is that your claim above is absolute and total trash. No report is perfect, many contain errors, but that doesn't make them propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign. To be propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign requires intent on the part of the creator to deceive/confuse the reader. They are distinct things and it is generally very easy to tell from actual reporting.
If it is easy to tell, then it is great, but oftentimes it is not easy to tell. You usually can't know the intent of a creator after all (unless you can read minds. If so, please tell me how ). Also, the intent of propaganda is not necessarily to deceive. Propaganda is often written by those who absolutely believe in what they are writing, for the purpose of making other people see things their way. And disinformation also doesn't have to be deceitful. It can come around simply as a result of sloppiness, blindly copying sources or other instances of bad reporting.
The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not.
Everyone will get it wrong from time to time, accepting something that's at least partially false, or rejecting something that is accurate. But we don't need to reach perfection here. If people on the whole just cut out the blatant junk the debate would vastly improve from where it is today.
Aye, reaching perfection is unfortunately impossible. And sometimes people in a position of authority get it wrong and take major decisions based on that wrong information, which can have disastrous consequences.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
This is really just repeating the same argument. You keep repeating that it's hard to determine all the facts of an issue. That's true, but achieving a level where people are actually debating the difficult to achieve facts would be such a massive improvement that we should be ecstatic if we moved half way to reaching that point.
There was a cricket match concluded yesterday, at the end Western Australia set Tasmania a challenged 360 run target, and Tassie collapsed, being dismissed for their lowest score in their history in the competition and losing by 300 runs. There is a discussion going on as to whether the pitch became more difficult for batsmen, or whether WA's class bowling line up finally clicked in to gear, or whether Tassie panicked and then folded. The truth is debatable and no-one will ever know for sure. But we do know it wasn't because Hillary Clinton bribed Putin to pressure George Bailey to throw the match in order to cover up that the conflict in Syria is actually a globalist plot to take guns away from god fearing Americans.
On a world stage, many people believe things in that last category. They believe them because no matter how ridiculous these ideas are, they are comforting to the reader, and therefore preferable to the challenge and complexity of reality. That's crap is polluting the debate, and attitudes like yours, that we just can't tell what is at least trying to be genuine reporting, is a huge part of the problem.
Nb: The rest of our discussion is pretty much off topic, so I put it in spoiler tags to avoid inconveniencing other people on this thread.
I'd hide stuff behind spoilers if I was in your position as well. I mean, I'd hate it if it was continually pointed out that I claimed that Crimea was one of the strongest economies in Ukraine, and then spent pages trying to back off from that. The difference between me and you is that I would have admitted my mistake.
Uh, you know that spoilers don't actually hide things, right? You can just click on it and it shows. You are once more assuming too much. I put it in spoilers because it is off topic, and according to the rules of Dakka, posts should be on topic. So I put it in spoilers so that the people who come here to actually discuss ISIS and the situation in Syria/Iraq don't have to scroll through our long off topic nonsense posts first. Which is why I am once again putting spoiler tags around it.
Though I must say that it doesn't surprise me to see you attacking this. Everything to distract from the fact that you lost the argument right?
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Your phrasing is sometimes a little off, but overall your English is excellent and I say as some that has failed woefully in my efforts to learn a second language, I am quite impressed at how you consistently make your points perfectly clearly on dakka. The problem is not your English, the problem was your argument was bad.
Thank you very much for the compliment . I lived in the UK for a short while, so I guess that explains some of it. Although I do have to admit that I often still find myself using a dictionary when writing here on Dakka. Lots of difficult words here
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement).
No, you said 'especially Sevastapol'. But that's a non-argument. You can't pick out one part and say it's the only bit that should be considered.
Well, that was what I did. I brought up Sevastopol, which being a relatively rich part of Ukraine and located on Crimea, precludes the Crimea from being an economic backwater. Again, economic backwaters do not tend to have major ports and industry.
sebster wrote: That part should be considered as part of the whole. And when you include the rest of Crimea, the whole lot drags back to being a backwater.
While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not.
Yes, but a statement that a place is an economic backwater doesn't mean no part of it is quite rich. "We are a poor family" doesn't become false if a cousin becomes a lawyer. Because you still look at the family as a whole and note that when most members are unemployed or working minimum wage, the family as a whole is poor.
No. The family isn't poor if it has a rich lawyer. The rest of the family is poor. The family as a whole isn't poor. If the family as a whole were poor that would mean that all of its members (all parts of the whole) are poor. Here, that is evidently not the case, so the family isn't poor and Crimea as a whole isn't an economic backwater.
And here is again. You've retreated to the much lesser claim that the region is average, without ever admitting your early claim that the region was one of the strongest economic regions in Ukraine.
Retreating would mean that I have ever held another position. I have not. As I now have said many times, but which you keep ignoring, my claims regarding one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine (stronger, not strongest) were regarding Sevastopol. Which is true. And which disproves your claim that Crimea is an economic backwater. Again, if the Crimea as a whole was an economic backwater, then all of it would have to be. But since significant parts of the Crimea are evidently not economic backwaters, you can't say that the Crimea as a whole is an economic backwater.
Which brings me once again to the central part of my argument that you so deftly keep avoiding. To put it very simply: You are wrong. Your initial claim was wrong and you have been trying to distract from that and wriggle your way out since the beginning.
The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine.
You didn't 'specify' that region. You said 'especially'. If you specified you would have been referring just to that part only and excluding the rest of the region. But the word you used, 'especially', doesn't do that. 'Especially' means it is true of the whole region, and very true of this one bit in particular. "Western Europe is very rich, especially Germany" doesn't mean the statement is only true for Germany, it means it is true for the whole region, and particularly for Germany.
Oh. It does? But I thought it meant that you specify that thing out of a greater whole? My dictionary lists for the Russian term imenno in the meaning I wanted to use it the translation namely, especially. Of those I chose especially over namely because even though namely seems a direct translation, I don't recall seeing it before. Especially seemed more familiar. Is that an error in the dictionary or did I something wrong?
Well, regardless of the word used, I think you should by now very well know what I meant by it.
But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
No, I still stand by what I said, because it's simply fething true. I guess if you wanted to stretch things you could possibly say that my first post was generalist as it didn't note the coastal region being wealthier, but that generalisation was needed because adding it would have ruined the pacing of my joke that was all my first comment was actually meant to be. And considering when you decided to challenge that comment, and I quickly noted you were right that the coastal region was actually fairly well off (but not large enough or rich enough to offset the poverty in the rest of the region), it'd be a real stretch to call that a mistake.
So you do admit your statement was an unjust generalisation and not true? Because as I noted before, the region as a whole generally performed somewhat above average for a Ukrainian region. That means that the relative prosperity of the urban areas is in fact enough to offset the relative poverty of the rural areas. Compare this with Kherson, which has the same situation and landscape as rural Crimea, but without Sevastopol and the coast to offset that. Do you note the difference in economy between the two regions? Which of the two is the economic backwater?
sebster wrote: Whereas you did in fact claim that the region was one of the richest in Ukraine, and it was a teethpulling exercise to get you to accept that claim was quite mistaken.
I never claimed that it was one of the richest. Although that claim funnily enough might have been true, thanks to all the millionaires having second homes on the coast.
I only claimed that it wasn't an economic backwater because significant areas of it belonged to the stronger economic parts of Ukraine. You can keep trying to wriggle around, hiding behind straw men to avoid admitting this truth, but why you would do that? Are you afraid for your ego? Don't worry. This is just a silly internet discussion. Nobody will care. And besides, we all make mistakes from time to time. Admitting that only makes us stronger.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/30 12:10:58
Iron_Captain wrote: And here you are putting words in my mouth again. I thought I had told you to stop doing that?
I never said it can't be done at all, I am only saying that it is difficult
Your actual literal words;
"Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying."
You say we can't know and there is no way we can check, but then you say it can be done but is difficult. Obviously you're all over the shop on this, but wait there's more!
I never claimed that it was one of the richest.
Your actual literal words;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
It's like debating with a tub of jello.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/30 12:27:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Your actual literal words;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
You said it. And then you just post over and over again that you didn't say it. That is not a healthy thing to do.
Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.
Iron_Captain wrote: Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.
So you're really going to try and make the argument that Crimea is economically powerful, but not rich. This is getting more and more absurd.
I also look forward to you trying to explain how you never said "we simply can not know what happens or happened... there is no way for us to check what they are saying" and "I never said it can't be done at all".
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
. I lived in the