AlexL

Don't forget what has to be proved : each of the 7 mentioned criticisms (by whYNOT) of the entire Western media is true. In particular, that it is all "egregiously devious", indoctrinating and propagandizing, almost never conduct unbiased investigations and so on. And these were only about media. I didn't quote other sins that whYNOT is accusing the West of, and kind of contrasting it with the putinist Russia.

This "reasoning" is the same "how else do you explain...", and it proves nothing. I already explained why. And Doug Morris mentioned, in his comment above, other possible explanations.

1. OK, then prove that each of these 7 criticisms of the entire Western is fair, that is true; 2. "How else do you explain" this or that proves nothing. It only shows that the person uttering this "argument" has no other explanation, not that no other explanation is possible. He still has to positively prove that his explanation is the correct one. Moreover, this "argument" does not compel the interlocutor to come with an alternative explanation. It only shows that the utterer's is an arbitrary one.

whYNOT about the West, some quotes: dominant western news reports... western propaganda... western indoctrination... egregiously devious… western media... West's own propaganda-for-war-machine... indoctrinated unreality a large part of the West lives in... western media … seldom … conduct unbiased investigations... These are not from all his comments, and not about West in general, but only about western media and only from his comments spanning about four weeks. Possibly whYNOT's RT-worship has something to do with his animus against the West...

But apparently they are not worthwhile being answered – refuted or else agreed with. Instead, you go for whataboutism (also called “But you are lynching Negroes!”) : the subject being the objectivity of RT’s presentation of RAND Corporation Report, you change the subject with a counter-accusation: And then going on a tangent… I wonder if this - inappropriate - behavior has something to do with the fact that a week ago you were in the "Senior Member" group, now you are a „Regular”…

Why not directly to the AI Report ??? Or to a source which is NOT of one of the belligerents ? Russia Today is 100% owned by the Russian government, which is party in the conflict. The minimum level of prudence would suggest to find, for yourself, another source. Towards the readers of OO, the minimum level of honesty would be the same - to refer to a source which is not suspect a priori of bias. But no, for a strange reason, for years you have been taking your info from RT, you have been educated by it, you foolishly trust it. Your views about the West have been at least influenced, if not defined, by RT, despite of the - residual - skepticism you claim having on it.

Because it is in the RAND Corporation document, together with “Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. ! These are not MY comments! And even if not quoted literally, in an honest summary there should be a mention of the fact that the study considers the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and condemns it in the strongest words. And there should be also a mention of the fact that the study starts from the premise that the Russian Federation needs to be confronted. These considerations are, for the study, the premises for their recommendations: - to continue to oppose RF, but - to be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO, - “but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks” This last point is a direct quote from the Study, namely from their highlighted assessment: “A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.” Yes, precisely, the fundamentals, that is the main ideas of the study, in our case, and not some misrepresentation. Here is my very short, but fair summary: “While considering the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and needed to be confronted, the RAND Corporation study advises that the US policymaker should be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO.” It has 42 words, This can be augmented by a more or less detailed description of the four circumstances with the potential of being used by Russia as excuses to attack NATO. The total will not exceed 300 words [using the dream-weaver's 245-word summary]. The RT’s misrepresentation of the study has 800 words (the study itself has 2’800 words.) Therefore, “space constraints” is a shameful excuse for omitting to include the general position of the study towards this war.

I quoted what authors of the study consider to be its essence (how to avoid deliberate Russian escalation). I have also quoted critique by the study of what it calls „Kremlin’s brutal invasion”. Nether appear in RT’s rendering of it. You cannot say that RT’s rendering of the study is “neutral and factual” even after I provided evidence that it was not. Maybe you could have claimed innocently at the beginning that RT’s non-editorializing, because you probably did not read yourself the study (although you should have!), but now you cannot do it in good faith. Yes, I do know what “editorializing” means: “express opinions rather than just report the news.” Accordingly, RT editorialized indeed: - in our case, news is the content of RAND Corporation’s study, and - expressing opinion consisted in omitting to report on the essence of the study, as well as on the opinion of its authors towards the Russia’s aggression. This example shows that Russia Today is not a neutral source of information. It is not a surprise: Russia’s government is not paying their employees to speak about “deliberate Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. It pays them to deliver international audiences “[the] Russian viewpoint on major global events”, according to its own humble description. And this it does – augmenting their message with the Russian government’s viewpoint on the facts themselves! Yeah, right! This is your rendering of my comment, in pure RT-style, with your personal crude concoction of facts about what I wrote.

To add to Eiuol remarks. This RT article is supposed to be, according to whYNOT, just a summary of a recently published Rand Corporation’s (RC) study, namely an objective summary (“no editorializing"). But is it ? (Please note: I neither endorse nor discuss the quality of this RC study.) The study’s objective is, according to its authors, to assist “U.S. policymakers who are trying to help Ukraine while simultaneously avoiding a great power war,” by „identifying pathways to intentional Russian escalation.” The authors (or the editors) particularly highlighted the following assessment: “A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.” While of central importance, this assessment didn’t find its way to the RT “summary.” Maybe it will find its way into a future RT article about Rand Corporation’s warmongering…😁 In RT’s reading of the study, the study’s objective is to warn the US policymakers of the danger of helping the Ukrainians – with weapons, with sanctions or otherwise. Accordingly, RT “non- editorializing” article avoids expressions like “Russian escalation”, “Russia might purposely choose to target NATO forces”, „Kremlin’s brutal invasion”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. The twisting and spinning by RT begins from the very title: RC Title: Pathways to Russian Escalation Against NATO from the Ukraine War RT Title: Think-tank advises US how to avoid war with Russia [instead of: „how to avoid Russian escalation which may lead to a war between Russia and NATO”] I wonder why does whYNOT approvingly link to an botched RT summary and not to the original study – with his own comments ? From the comments to the RT article one sees that, unfortunately, RT has a lot of gullible and faithful devotees. However, it is a special, and continuing, success for RT to be approvingly cited in an Objectivism publication, by a "Senior Member"…

What exactly is your point with these links - clearly and succinctly ?

Fallacies, missing the point, failing to address the issue in question. Correct, you are under no obligation to prove every bit that comes from media sources, but you have a strong obligation to prove, when asked to, the allegations contained in the pieces you approvingly quote. Because you were not there on the spot and wish to understand what really happened, you have to rely on sources. You thus have to check their reliability. This is a long term task - years - and requires a strict discipline. Governmental sources of the warring parties are a priori the least reliable of all - one never knows what is true and what is not. And precisely these are the sources you approvingly cite ! And you refuse to admit that they are a priory problematic and refuse to justify them when asked to. As I noted before, regarding validation, the score is : you validated NONE of your claims, not even those I asked you to, and ALL your claims of fact that I did fact-check proved to be false. But you never acknowledge when your facts are clearly and unequivocally DIS-proved. My judgment is that, in the debate about the war of Russia against Ukraine, your performance was awful. It is up to the moderators to grant you or not the privilege to dispense you from the rule of the onus of proof.

That what is going on between Russia and Ukraine is that an independent and sovereign country was military attacked and an attempt is made to suppress dissolve it or at least continue to dismember it and incorporate the pieces. Crimea was already swallowed (in 2014), and parts of Donbas were already detached from Ukraine. With the second stage of the war, which started 5 months ago, the process continues with a much higher intensity. It is unique in that it takes place in the 21 century, in Europe, in violation of a dozen of treaties regarding the independency and territorial integrity of post-soviet countries. It is a textbook case of naked, cynical, perfidious aggression, similar to Nazi Germany (and Russia’s) aggression of Poland in 1939, which started WWII. For an Objectivism forum it is important as an opportunity to discuss the responses of USA and Europe to this war , from the point of view of Ethics and Political Philosophy PS: About In fact, - the problem is that Tony is NOT providing conflicting sources, he mainly and consistently provides information, and supports his claims, from governmental sources of one of the warring parties; - he is also not simply “missing the point”, he supplies “facts” he cannot (and is not willing) to validate.

There's a limit. I have to assume that everybody here is perusing and considering anything they can find. I can't help anyone to simply see what's in front of them, AlexL. No, there is no limit for the principle of the onus of proof in a rational debate, even more so on this forum. You cannot ask the reader to fact-check himself the "facts" you generously put in your comments ("perusing and considering anything they can find"). When a reader asks you to, you are required to prove/justify your "facts". (And proof means a direct proof, not some rationalization fallacy like "but how can you explain this otherwise?" and such.) Instead, you explicitly reject the principle because it hinders the free-fly of thought: And no, rarely is a fact simply something one only needs to look at because it is "in front of them". Regarding validation, here is the score: - you validated NONE of your claims, not even those I asked you to, - ALL your claims of fact that I did fact-check proved to be false. But you never acknowledge when your facts are clearly and unequivocally DIS-proved. PS: I note that you dodged again the problem with approvingly quoting governmental sources of warring parties, although it is an important question of principle.

My question was : "Can you prove your claim that "Zelensky has the goods on the Biden Crime Family" ? If this is not a copout: yes, I do want the truth. As it was you who made the claim, it is up to you to prove it. I promise to consider your proof with all seriousness.

Can you prove your claim that "Zelensky has the goods on the Biden Crime Family" ? Or you think that Biden sends all the weapons Zelensky demands and from this you infer your claim ? 1. This inference is fallacious. 2. In fact, Biden is very reluctant to send to Ukraine the weapons it needs, many qualitative and quantitative restrictions are imposed, Congress has to put political pressure on Biden, the Lend-Lease Law signed in May seems to be stuck, etc. According to the most recent report of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (July 1, 2022, see here), weapon deliveries by USA as a percent of its per capita GDP are on the 12-th rank, behind Estonia (1), Latvia (2), Poland (3)... Germany (9), Italy (10) and Australia (11)... Yeah, "about anything he demands" ! That is why Zelensky had to send his wife to beg the Congress for more and better weapons ?? Or you believe that, in fact, Biden sends in secret orders of magnitudes more, but this is unreported ? Well, I count on Putin's spies - he has everywhere, first and foremost in Ukraine - to make a huge fuss about it if it were the case. But Putin is silent... Maybe he participates in the conspiracy... These facts would mean, by a contrario, that Zelensky does NOT have the goods on Biden😁