5 ms·
"say might be true, or it might be false" So you don't bother to google and check if the Ukraine has a habit of lying too, and prefer to believe anything comin
by gdy 3y ago
"say might be true, or it might be false"
So you don't bother to google and check if the Ukraine has a habit of lying too, and prefer to believe anything coming from Kiev only because Russia says the opposite.
The word 'whataboutism' is a form of dishonest debate and used to distract from critique of double standards.
"guess who invented it? russia, of course."
I'd say it was invented during Cold War by some American in search of rhetorical device to distract from their double standards.
- _kbh_ 3y agoTheres no evidence it hit anything, other then that of the Russian government who has shown itself in this conflict that it is incapable of doing anything but lying. In fact people found where it was doing deployed and theres not even any scorch marks, everything points to the thousandeth Russian lie in this war more then anything else.
- gdy 3y agoAs there are no evidence that any Kinzhal was intercepted.
- _kbh_ 3y agoThe lack of any scorch marks or impact craters around or anywhere near the patriot sight is a pretty good indication it was intercepted. Same with the giant flashes in the sky.
- gdy 3y ago"The lack of any scorch marks" Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0] There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-...
- _kbh_ 3y ago> Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0] Yes, minimal damage from flying debris from something, but it's clear from that satellite imagery nothing hit any part of an actual patriot. > There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted. Exactly, no evidence of anything but minimal damage to a patriot either. Kinda pathetic given the size of the attack that Russia cannot even take out one air defense system that they clear know where is.
- gdy 3y ago"no evidence of anything" Including the number of 'intercepted' Kinzhals which is exactly my point. I don't see what you are trying to argue about.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agothe point is that the default is russia is lying, due to their long history of lying, and nothing anybody else says or does changes that
- gdy 3y agoIt's comical that you called it 'bayesian prior' and now say you'll never update probabilities.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agothe flaw in your logic is that things (!russia) does don't affect the high probability that russia is lying, which is, again, the bayesian prior only the changing behavior of russia can change russia's history of behavior, and it can choose to change in a more honest direction anytime (but has not done so)
- gdy 3y agoThey do, imagine two states that both have high probability of lying and one says "A" and another says "not A". They can't be both lying, can they?