4 ms·
It's comical that you called it 'bayesian prior' and now say you'll never update probabilities.
by gdy 3y ago
It'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?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoyou're thinking about it wrong, they don't have any effect on each other, even if you think you can use one to reason about the other if russia says A, we can assume !A due to russia's history of dishonesty, literally with no other information necessary someone else being dishonest, even if true, doesn't make russia more honest, so we can still assume !A indeed, because russia's history of dishonesty is so long and strong, we can stop right there, unless russia proves its probable lies are actually truthful (such is the fate of a liar) if they don't like it, they can start being honest and keep it up for a few decades to show they've changed
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gdy 3y agoNow that's just pure russophobia.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agois it? doesn't seem to be. indeed, calling the world's totally normal reaction to russia's history of dishonesty "russophobia" seems a little defensive and russophilic
- gdy 3y agoWell, I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments. All of them showed themselves as serial liars just like lots of other governments. When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying because that would mean that you think that another habitual liar is always telling the truth. Or you can, but that just makes you a russophobe.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago> I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments. given such a false equivalence, and even more whataboutism, it is then good that that opinion is not the opinion of most countries in the world (by UN vote) after all, fewer than 3% of countries, representing fewer than 3% of people in the world, were willing to go on record saying they trust russia's claims and excuses when they said the same thing > When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying I didn't say they're always lying, I pointed out that's simply the default state until russia PROVES its claims. can we do that? it depends: is one of them russia, a country with a long history of lying more often than telling the truth on matters such as this? if so, then you totally can treat it as the default, because again, and for the third time: X being dishonest doesn't make russia honest, only russia being honest makes russia honest meanwhile, you can't just ignore russia's dishonesty by resorting to whataboutism and finger pointing and 'but america/Ukraine/the west...': you must address russia's dishonesty directly. > that just makes you a russophobe does it though? That doesn't seem to actually be the case. indeed, calling the world's totally normal reaction to russia's history of dishonesty "russophobia" seems a little defensive and russophilic
- 3y ago