3 ms·

It's a logic failure? How? Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe t

It's a logic failure? How? Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them? You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?

jacquesm 3y ago
Having room enough in your worldview for an FBI that goes so far over their brief that they could start a war is well outside my comfort zone. Note that what you are describing goes directly against anything the FBI stands for and with a flourish you equate that 0.0000001% possibility with the 98% possibility (based on the evidence available) that this is Russia acting to sow dissent in the EU. Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so). Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
- verisimi 3y ago
  Right - it could be outside your comfort zone. But not a logic failure. If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'? What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed? There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Wag the dog is fiction. The FBI consists of so many people that an effort like this isn't going to pass unnoticed so it really doesn't make any sense to postulate that they did it when there is a perfectly good explanation available already that also happens to fit all of the available data. Santa's elves (if we're going to allow fiction...) could have done it too but nobody in their right mind would suggest we raid lapland to get at them because we pretty much know who is behind this even if we can't do much about it short of isolating Russia from the Internet. Which I would be absolutely fine with and any country that offers them transit can get blocked as well. Having a connection to the internet comes with the implicit assumption that your country does not want that connection to wreak havoc on the rest of the world. As for the FBI abroad: they have local people called liaison officers that rely heavily on cooperation with their counterparts abroad, if the FBI was ever caught in a circumstance like the one you suggest all of that would go out the window and that would be an extremely high price to pay.

jacquesm 3y ago

Having room enough in your worldview for an FBI that goes so far over their brief that they could start a war is well outside my comfort zone. Note that what you are describing goes directly against anything the FBI stands for and with a flourish you equate that 0.0000001% possibility with the 98% possibility (based on the evidence available) that this is Russia acting to sow dissent in the EU. Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so). Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.

verisimi 3y ago
Right - it could be outside your comfort zone. But not a logic failure. If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'? What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed? There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Wag the dog is fiction. The FBI consists of so many people that an effort like this isn't going to pass unnoticed so it really doesn't make any sense to postulate that they did it when there is a perfectly good explanation available already that also happens to fit all of the available data. Santa's elves (if we're going to allow fiction...) could have done it too but nobody in their right mind would suggest we raid lapland to get at them because we pretty much know who is behind this even if we can't do much about it short of isolating Russia from the Internet. Which I would be absolutely fine with and any country that offers them transit can get blocked as well. Having a connection to the internet comes with the implicit assumption that your country does not want that connection to wreak havoc on the rest of the world. As for the FBI abroad: they have local people called liaison officers that rely heavily on cooperation with their counterparts abroad, if the FBI was ever caught in a circumstance like the one you suggest all of that would go out the window and that would be an extremely high price to pay.