4 ms·

It's called "fog of war". If you believe everything Ukraine/US/EU says you are just as much as a fool as if you did believing Russia.

lawn 3y ago
Of course you shouldn't blindly believe everything one side says, but saying that Russia is as trustworthy as the rest of the world (barring a dozen countries at the bottom of the democracy ranking) is just wrong.
ajuc 3y ago
One said Ukrainians are nazis and satanists and that NATO wants to invade Russia. And that Russia won't invade in 2022. The other side said Russia wants to invade and that it will invade in 2022. Believing that when there's 2 sides the truth is always in the middle is foolishness.
_glsb 3y ago
[flagged]
- randunel 3y ago
  This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
  - jevgeni 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - randunel 3y ago
      Since you seemed to appreciate logical fallacies, your argument starts with an appeal to emotion [0], then ends with ad hominem [1]. There's no point in your argument, nor in your personal attack, since nobody denied the war or mentioned anything about it in this thread of ours. Siding with the victim doesn't suddenly make your logic perfectly sound, and it doesn't make your peers side with the aggressors, either. Let's keep discussions civil, shall we? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      - Larrikin 3y ago
        [flagged]
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
        What are you trying to say? To hell with facts and reason, if they're opposing my politics or emotions? I guess critics of enlightenment were right: humans ain't improving shit. We're only pretending to, and it works only as long as the culture allows it.
- arcanemachiner 3y ago
  Pearl-clutching alone is not a valid justification to end a discussion.
  - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
    It’s not pearl-clutching when you have seen missiles and drones flying towards your house like I have.
k0k0r0 3y ago
I agree with the intention of this comment. However, "fog of war" usually refers to the situation the fighting soldiers and commanders are in, not to the situation the ordinary population. It refers to the fact, that the soldiers and commanders themselves need to fight. Where they need to base their decisions on an understanding of the situation high uncertainty.
paganel 3y ago
The OP "believes" that the Russians bombed out their own pipeline, a thing not even mentioned by the Western press anymore (it's all a "blob" for them at this point).

lawn 3y ago

Of course you shouldn't blindly believe everything one side says, but saying that Russia is as trustworthy as the rest of the world (barring a dozen countries at the bottom of the democracy ranking) is just wrong.

ajuc 3y ago

One said Ukrainians are nazis and satanists and that NATO wants to invade Russia. And that Russia won't invade in 2022. The other side said Russia wants to invade and that it will invade in 2022. Believing that when there's 2 sides the truth is always in the middle is foolishness.

_glsb 3y ago

[flagged]

randunel 3y ago
This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
- jevgeni 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - randunel 3y ago
    Since you seemed to appreciate logical fallacies, your argument starts with an appeal to emotion [0], then ends with ad hominem [1]. There's no point in your argument, nor in your personal attack, since nobody denied the war or mentioned anything about it in this thread of ours. Siding with the victim doesn't suddenly make your logic perfectly sound, and it doesn't make your peers side with the aggressors, either. Let's keep discussions civil, shall we? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - Larrikin 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        What are you trying to say? To hell with facts and reason, if they're opposing my politics or emotions? I guess critics of enlightenment were right: humans ain't improving shit. We're only pretending to, and it works only as long as the culture allows it.
arcanemachiner 3y ago
Pearl-clutching alone is not a valid justification to end a discussion.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  It’s not pearl-clutching when you have seen missiles and drones flying towards your house like I have.

k0k0r0 3y ago

I agree with the intention of this comment. However, "fog of war" usually refers to the situation the fighting soldiers and commanders are in, not to the situation the ordinary population. It refers to the fact, that the soldiers and commanders themselves need to fight. Where they need to base their decisions on an understanding of the situation high uncertainty.

paganel 3y ago

The OP "believes" that the Russians bombed out their own pipeline, a thing not even mentioned by the Western press anymore (it's all a "blob" for them at this point).