About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[Grames]

[whYNOT]

AS good a place as any for this: to draw attention to NATO. Its long-past-essential role, its "permanent" 'entanglements'.

"Here let us stop"

[...]

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to
the truly enlightened and independent patriot.
How many opportunities do they afford to tamper
with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduc-
tion, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe
the public councils! Such an attachment of a small
or weak towards a great and powerful nation
dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence
(I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the
jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
awake, since history and experience prove that for-
eign influence is one of the most baneful foes of re-
publican government. But that jealousy to be useful
must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument
of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a de-
fense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign
nation and excessive dislike of another cause those
whom they actuate to see danger only on one side,
and serve to veil and even second the arts of influ-
ence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the
intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become sus-
pected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp
the applause and confidence of the people to sur-
render their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to for-
eign nations is, in extending our commercial rela-
tions, to have with them as little political connec-
tion as possible. So far as we have already formed
engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us
have none or a very remote relation. Hence she
must be engaged in frequent controversies, the
causes of which are essentially foreign to our con-
cerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to
implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combina-
tions and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and
enables us to pursue a different course. If we re-
main one people under an efficient government,
the period is not far off when we may defy material
injury from external annoyance; when we may take
such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may
at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously re-
spected; when belligerent nations, under the im-
possibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not
lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we
may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by
justice shall counsel.
Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situa-
tion? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign
ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that
of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival-
ship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent
alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so
far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let
me not be understood as capable of patronizing in-
fidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim
no less applicable to public than to private affairs,
that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it
therefore, let those engagements be observed in...
[27]

[...]
WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS
Page 27

Edited October 20, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Neutral Sweden was stampeded into joining up.

https://youtu.be/dzWiQ9Nuv4k?si=TDuMzeqAfKG9X25g

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 10/15/2023 at 6:58 AM, Grames said:

It's over.  Russia wins.

The New Current Thing is Israel's war of extermination against the Gaza concentration camp. 

Terribly wrong on both counts. The extermination is explicitly intended specifically for terrorists not civilians.

The 'prison walls' went up - after - bombings, suicide attacks began by Hamas.

I heard of Israelis regularly crossing into Gaza on business before the Israel pullout. Also Gazans working and going for medical assistance in Israel (still did, at least until the assault). 

Not like you to reverse causation.

Edited October 20, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Neutral Sweden was stampeded into joining up.

Neutral Sweden was driven into joining up by Putin's aggression of Ukraine.

Quote

https//youtube.com/...

Agnes Hellström is a "peace activist"...

OTOH it is true that even a broken clock is right twice a day... as you were right about Israel😁

Edited October 20, 2023 by AlexL

[stansfield123]

Sorry, but why are you guys saying that Sweden was neutral before joining NATO? Sweden and Finland ended any pretense of neutrality in 1995, when they joined the EU. The EU treaty commits members to the same military obligations as NATO: if one member is attacked, all members must fight.

 

 

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

Sorry, but why are you guys saying that Sweden was neutral before joining NATO? Sweden and Finland ended any pretense of neutrality in 1995, when they joined the EU. The EU treaty commits members to the same military obligations as NATO: if one member is attacked, all members must fight.

Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact:

Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states:

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries. 

Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU.

Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force.

Quote

... if one member is attacked, all members must fight

Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5  does commit members to an obligation to fight !

[whYNOT]

17 hours ago, AlexL said:

Neutral Sweden was driven into joining up by Putin's aggression of Ukraine.

 

Was driven? More like a PR coup, than anything significantly meaningful. So NATO could claim 'a victory'- we gained two new members!

The control of Public Perceptions, is how the West conducted the war, believed in their false construct themselves - all why they and Kyiv have done badly. On the other side ~hard reality~ has been the hallmark, regardless of mass feelings.

Sweden's membership did not disturb the Kremlin much that I could see. Unimportant smoke and mirrors by the West.

But if it gained a little security, Sweden will lose something more valuable, their neutrality and independence.

Update. I remind you that a few months ago the NATO chief finally confessed/boasted that they knew Putin's invasion was primarily driven by his demands of neutrality (etc.) - for Ukraine. And they 'pridefully' would not accede to his wishes (for all that it could have ended a war, the immoral idiots)

If you paid attention to the implications, that is as good as an admission that NATO knew all along that Russia posed ZERO dangers to any other European countries: Only to Ukraine, and only part of it. As better observers pointed out.

Did they inform the Swedish PM of that, so not to worry about being invaded? Heh, no way.

But the "imperialism" farce was a useful ploy to frighten the pols and people in Sweden-Finland (and everywhere else) into subservience. Again, western "perceptions", PR/propaganda, the single great success and failing by the alliance.

Edited October 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

17 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

Agnes Hellström is a "peace activist"...

 

And that's a slur against her? I'd believe more "peace activists" and less warmongers was what was required. For "peace", so long as they are not pacifists against self-defence, mind. 

 War appears to breed more war. The pathological killers come out when nations are in conflict as if they have been given carte blanche to imitate them.

Edited October 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[stansfield123]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

NATO knew all along that Russia posed ZERO dangers to any other European countries

How do you reconcile your absurd belief that Russia poses no danger to any other European countries with

1. Russian state TV routinely preaching about restoring the Russian Empire,

2. same Russian outlets routinely discussing the necessity of invading Poland and the Baltics

3. same Russian outlets, not to mention Russian officials, routinely threatening nuclear attacks on European countries

4. Russian interference in European elections

5. Russian assassinations on European and British soil

6. the fact that Ukraine isn't the only European country Russia HAS ALREADY invaded. Putin has invaded or is currently stationing unwanted forces in three European countries (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova), and has forces propping up tyrannical, unpopular regimes in several other ones (most notably Belarus).

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

How do you reconcile your absurd belief that Russia poses no danger to any other European countries with

1. Russian state TV routinely preaching about restoring the Russian Empire,

2. same Russian outlets routinely discussing the necessity of invading Poland and the Baltics

3. same Russian outlets, not to mention Russian officials, routinely threatening nuclear attacks on European countries

4. Russian interference in European elections

5. Russian assassinations on European and British soil

6. the fact that Ukraine isn't the only European country Russia HAS ALREADY invaded. Putin has invaded or is currently stationing unwanted forces in three European countries (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova), and has forces propping up tyrannical, unpopular regimes in several other ones (most notably Belarus).

All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.

It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.

Turns out he is quite rational.

And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?

Then move onto the next country?

All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?

All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.

Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.

If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!

Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 

The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.

Therefore the West can never accept that

1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.

2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.

Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 

The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.

Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.

Edited October 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 10/20/2023 at 9:57 AM, AlexL said:

Neutral Sweden was driven into joining up by Putin's aggression of Ukraine.

Was driven? More like a PR coup, than anything significantly meaningful.

Joining a military block - a PR coup? Rather unusual...

But... why not?😁 Do you have evidence that this was the reason?

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 10/20/2023 at 9:57 AM, AlexL said:

Agnes Hellström is a "peace activist"...

And that's a slur against her? ... For "peace", so long as they are not pacifists against self-defence

Is Agnes Hellström for self-defence? Some evidence? In Israel's case, for example?

Edited October 21, 2023 by AlexL

[stansfield123]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

All conjecture

Sorry, what? Russia didn't invade Georgia? They don't have troops in Moldova and Belarus? The Youtube videos of programs which aired on Russian state TV, in which talking heads call for everything I described are fake? Medvedev's statements threatening nuclear war are fake, he didn't say it?

Is that what you're saying? Jesus dudes, I've been told this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum of some kind. What the hell? These are basic facts.

Edited October 21, 2023 by stansfield123

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Jesus dudes, I've been told this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum of some kind. What the hell? These are basic facts.

Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).

As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".

You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.

He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.

The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...

So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...

His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁

Edited October 21, 2023 by AlexL
for clarity

[necrovore]

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.

The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...

This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation.

The whole debate is about which facts to use, because if someone can cause facts to be discarded, or lies to be treated as facts, they can rig the argument to produce any result they want, even without changing the principles.

The "mainstream Western media" has learned that they can get perquisites by going along with the party line; the government, which makes news whenever it changes its policies, can reward obedient reporters by giving them scoops. This has been true for a long time; Rush Limbaugh's radio show cited example after example after example (of reporters uncritically repeating what they were told by leftist politicians). I see no evidence that this situation has changed, and much evidence that it has gotten worse. I also see no evidence that the situation is any different with the Ukraine issue than any other (such as gun control). That the media lies is not a "conspiracy theory." It is very real, and has been going on for decades.

I do not agree with @whYNOT about everything, but I very much disagree with the notion of censoring or canceling everything and everybody that "goes against the mainstream." Ayn Rand also went against the mainstream, and if she were to have written her novels in today's environment, no one would know about her.

Edited October 22, 2023 by necrovore

[whYNOT]

14 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

Is Agnes Hellström for self-defence? Some evidence? In Israel's case, for example?

You have not heard the critical point I often made to you.

I have quoted here and linked to scores of individuals, who explicate unheard of facts (to the uninformed mainstream), a logical argument, and a sound (value in lives) moral standpoint.

It means little to me that in any other context and topic I could and most certainly would, heavily oppose them. E.g. this one's "a socialist"/ this one's "a pacifist"/etc.

I do not endorse any as well-integrated, rational, self-interested and objective thinkers - in every field. Of course, that is rare. But they have a good hold of unindoctrinated reality, in their context, and re: this war - that is very rare.

The above question demonstrates your "revealed knowledge" intrinsicism. (This *obvious* perfect evil vs. perfect good that O'ists can evince, a lazy, ex-religious remnant especially noticeable concerning Russia/Putin and the rest). "How do I know he is good/evil? No need for the hard effort in judging his words and acts and character, I can see it on his face!"

People it turns out, often have self-contradicting and unaligned premises, dis- or mis- or non-integrated, as the case may be.

Where he/she (their argument) is right they're right. And if it 'appears' in Russia Today - i.e. "is associated with", more intrinsicism - or the NYT, or wherever, the identical thing applies.

Edited October 22, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

13 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

 Jesus dudes, I've been told this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum of some kind. What the hell? These are basic facts.

Nah, in this thread, this is a follow-the-government-line "fan-forum".

One can't go wrong faithfully obliging the Establishment.

[whYNOT]

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

an obligation to back up his claims with facts,

The demand for "facts" conceals an evasion of the most significant facts.

Disconnected, non-hierarchical "facts" signify an avoidance of conceptual thinking.

It's not "facts" you need, would you know what to do with them?

Edited October 22, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

 a follow-the-government-line

 

...and, when the final accounting is made "the government line" has been ... a disaster.

No amount of sweeping over the evidence will hide that fact from the public perception.

Far worse, it was a predictable disaster.

The premises, the objectives AND the methods have throughout been irrational, sacrificial, cynical.

The signs were there from the start: involvement in an anti-democratic regime change in another country and picking "a presentable president", cosying up to some pretty dirty groups and exploiting regional ethnic divisions, while inflaming conflict - with incredible cluelessness of the enemy's capabilities - while rejecting every peaceful exit on offer to exhibit how tough they are at the expense of others' lives  - who are proxies fighting on their behalf - while looking for material profit from this statist endeavor and naming their prospective gains from a Gvt.- abetted conflict "self-interested capitalism" - all on display.

A rational, "Enlightened" nation or alliance of them, is not collectivist-statist, it does not seek gratuitous, non(-SELF)-defensive violence. It might sometimes negotiate in damping down hostilities, elsewhere. It should place worth in human lives and peaceful - at least, neutral - coexistence, whether it approves of "the other group",  or not.

When properly and definably "defensive", without hesitation it must quickly wipe out enemy forces.

The governments and officials involved in this disaster should pay dearly for their grievous errors, with their reputations, positions and careers, at very least. Not that I estimate they will.

Edited October 22, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

On 10/22/2023 at 3:33 AM, necrovore said:

On 10/21/2023 at 9:25 PM, AlexL said:

He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.

The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...

This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation.

OK, then show :

1. where is the ad hominem in the above quote, that is what @whYNOT's argument did I answer by an attack on his person?
2. same for the alleged argument from intimidation.

 

[AlexL]

On 10/22/2023 at 7:24 AM, whYNOT said:

On 10/21/2023 at 5:34 PM, AlexL said:

Is Agnes Hellström for self-defence? Some evidence? In Israel's case, for example?

You have not heard the critical point I often made to you [...]

You obviously forgot(?) why I asked you the above question !

You implied that, while Agnes Hellström is indeed a "peace activist", she is NOT a "pacifists against self-defence". And you presented no proof that she is indeed FOR self-defence.

The larger context of the above theme was that you approvingly quoted/referenced her as an argument that Sweden's joining of NATO is indeed a big mistake.

So, again: Is Agnes Hellström indeed for self-defence? Can you present some evidence? For example in Israel's case?

I take this particular case because YOU are (unexpectedly for me) FOR Israel's right for self-defense in the current conflict.

[AlexL]

On 10/22/2023 at 8:46 AM, whYNOT said:

On 10/21/2023 at 9:25 PM, AlexL said:

an obligation to back up his claims with facts,

The demand for "facts" conceals an evasion of the most significant facts.

Disconnected, non-hierarchical "facts" signify an avoidance of conceptual thinking.

It's not "facts" you need, would you know what to do with them?

1. Do you agree that one does have an obligation to back up ones claims with facts?

[necrovore]

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

OK, then show :

1. where is the ad hominem in the above quote, that is what @whYNOT's argument did I answer by an attack on his person?
2. same for the alleged argument from intimidation.

When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.

Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.

And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.

If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.

If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.

(It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)

Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.

Edited October 23, 2023 by necrovore

[whYNOT]

e

On 10/21/2023 at 6:46 PM, stansfield123 said:

Sorry, what? Russia didn't invade Georgia?

 

A prequel to Ukraine, with very similar elements in place; The Soviets break up, a Color revolution, a war by West-leaning Georgians against the conservative loyalists in South Ossetia, a (short) military intervention by Russia - however = Georgia remains a sovereign nation to the present. Russia did not try to conquer/annex/ "Empire build" Georgia by justifying and capitalizing upon the tensions. Further, it did not do so despite Georgian wishes to join NATO and their close operational affinity.

A state situated totally within Russia - a NATO member!? and all the militarization and probable nuclear bases that entails? Really smart - and cynical. Unpopular with Moscow. This would be a security danger (for Georgia as well), into the far future. Nor would any other country consider tolerating a clearly inimical entity entering its heartland.

I could theorize that the game-plan by NATO et al utilized the Georgian episode knowing it could also entice Russia into Ukraine to defend loyalists - and the RF - against a massive, Nato-ized army, and to block NATO's intentions in the Russian "near abroad".

Besides, the fault lay largely with Georgia for the conflict, in this independent study. Only the RF's "legality' is faulted.

https://www.dw.com/en/independent-report-blames-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war/a-4746802

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.

Indeed, An active and receptive (not "open") mind is recommended. It's an impossibility to trace back, validate and communicate your entire conceptual store to another, given that it began inductively from a multitude of 'facts in reality'.

True OR false - OR unproven, as yet - while, (im)probable/(im)possible/(un)likely - constitute the triple poles, to my mind

(I'm not fond of "the arbitrary assertion" theory, whose importance escapes me: E.g., the onus is solely with the claimant to verify his/her assertion.

Cognitive rigidity will follow from this.

The utterly ridiculous assertion speaks for itself - it's false, not "arbitrary".

If one is interested and enjoys expanding one's knowledge, one would surely set about proving/disproving someone's claim for oneself.

A so-called "charity read", would begin with accepting a debater's veracity: why would this person set out to lie and to deceive? Therefore, until seen to be a regular character flaw, I listen in good faith while suspending judgment of its truth content (they could be innocently wrong too).

(The constant and unjust accusations of lying puts me on guard, I find they are very often a projection of the accuser's own untruthfulness).

Edited October 23, 2023 by whYNOT