3 ms·

Your points are disingenuous and suggest that Serbia wins in any case while it lacks higher ground. In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from C

by rospaya 12y ago

Your points are disingenuous and suggest that Serbia wins in any case while it lacks higher ground. In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too and this is a legitimate reason to block entry. In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo before a way is found to settle the dispute, something that has been done in a lot of post-Yugoslav succession cases with success.

toyg 12y ago
> Your points are disingenuous Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I honestly couldn't care less who "wins", I'm looking at the incentives purely as a third-party observer (well, as an EU citizen, I guess I have an interest in keeping the peace over there). > In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too Sure (well, until certain procedures become a matter of majority vote -- the EU is constantly changing, but I digress). But let's be honest here: if everyone else wants Serbia in, they will lean on Croatia to make it happen; and a few square kms of swamps are not worth souring relationships with the likes of Germany. That's why I said Croatians will likely get as much compensation as they can, while they have the chance; after all, they are not going to take back those swamps with tanks anytime soon. > In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo Yup, which is my scenario 2; and considering the status quo matches Serbian views, the only country with a problem remains Croatia. A rational actor would then pack it in, if maintaining a claim with very low chances made it not worth the trouble of dealing with a silly micronation on their doorstep. In fact, if I were Serbia I'd give Liberland all the help I get, trying to force Croatia to take charge of the area and add further legitimacy to the status quo.
- klez 12y ago
  > Thanks for the ad-hominem GP is attacking your points, not your person, that's not an ad-hominem attack.
  - shawn-furyan 12y ago
    Google's definition of disingenuous: dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective adjective: disingenuous not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" Calling it an ad-hominem is certainly not off base. Due to some linguistic anomaly, a lot of people seem not to realize that this word has a significant component that indicts the character of its target. Sometimes it seems to be used in an ad-hominem manner, and sometimes it seems to be used in ignorance of that component of definition of the word. However, it's often impossible to tell with certainty whether the person is using the word to intentionally attack someone's character or not. In any case, using the word can be incendiary. The word 'misleading' can generally be substituted in cases where one wishes to avoid the character attack.
    - klez 12y ago
      Ok, but I see the adjective applied to the argument, not to the person who wrote it. If he said "You are lying" it still wouldn't be an ad-hominem in my book. From wikipedia[0]: > An ad hominem [...], means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments By saying his points are disingenuous he's not attacking the person's character. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I see the adjective applied to the argument Its a descriptor of character/attitude/motive, which is a feature of the person providing the argument in relation to the act of providing the argument, not a feature of the content of the argument.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    "Disingenous" refers to the motive rather than the substance or content of the argument. If it is used as a reason (explicitly or implicitly) for dismissing an argument, it is an ad hominem (or, at a minimum, a closely related form of genetic fallacy.)

by rospaya 12y ago

toyg 12y ago

> Your points are disingenuous Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I honestly couldn't care less who "wins", I'm looking at the incentives purely as a third-party observer (well, as an EU citizen, I guess I have an interest in keeping the peace over there). > In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too Sure (well, until certain procedures become a matter of majority vote -- the EU is constantly changing, but I digress). But let's be honest here: if everyone else wants Serbia in, they will lean on Croatia to make it happen; and a few square kms of swamps are not worth souring relationships with the likes of Germany. That's why I said Croatians will likely get as much compensation as they can, while they have the chance; after all, they are not going to take back those swamps with tanks anytime soon. > In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo Yup, which is my scenario 2; and considering the status quo matches Serbian views, the only country with a problem remains Croatia. A rational actor would then pack it in, if maintaining a claim with very low chances made it not worth the trouble of dealing with a silly micronation on their doorstep. In fact, if I were Serbia I'd give Liberland all the help I get, trying to force Croatia to take charge of the area and add further legitimacy to the status quo.

klez 12y ago
> Thanks for the ad-hominem GP is attacking your points, not your person, that's not an ad-hominem attack.
- shawn-furyan 12y ago
  Google's definition of disingenuous: dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective adjective: disingenuous not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" Calling it an ad-hominem is certainly not off base. Due to some linguistic anomaly, a lot of people seem not to realize that this word has a significant component that indicts the character of its target. Sometimes it seems to be used in an ad-hominem manner, and sometimes it seems to be used in ignorance of that component of definition of the word. However, it's often impossible to tell with certainty whether the person is using the word to intentionally attack someone's character or not. In any case, using the word can be incendiary. The word 'misleading' can generally be substituted in cases where one wishes to avoid the character attack.
  - klez 12y ago
    Ok, but I see the adjective applied to the argument, not to the person who wrote it. If he said "You are lying" it still wouldn't be an ad-hominem in my book. From wikipedia[0]: > An ad hominem [...], means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments By saying his points are disingenuous he's not attacking the person's character. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I see the adjective applied to the argument Its a descriptor of character/attitude/motive, which is a feature of the person providing the argument in relation to the act of providing the argument, not a feature of the content of the argument.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  "Disingenous" refers to the motive rather than the substance or content of the argument. If it is used as a reason (explicitly or implicitly) for dismissing an argument, it is an ad hominem (or, at a minimum, a closely related form of genetic fallacy.)