|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 12 2016 10:40 oBlade wrote:
Okay, but the attack subs as far as I can tell are the ones that you say were spotted, which precipitated this whole thread.
The Typhoon, there's only one in service? I can't see why it wouldn't be in the paper, looks like a pure error, one that I think we've just now shown is not a hard mistake to make. But I think it reduces the degree to which that paper was wrong at the time.
Considering that only one of these is in active service, yeah. But the papers suggested that these didn't exist in 2006, and in 2006 there were two (one was decommissioned that year, so hard to tell). A screwup is possible but unlikely, considering that the Akula class (the more modern one) wasn't built by then.
It doesn't matter though, which boat was sighted - because the Akula Class, the more modern boat (the one that was most likely sighted, whatever) still has nuclear armament. Just not ICBMs, which aren't necessary if you're just off the coast of the US.
I wonder whether intelligence agencies fuck with Wikipedia so poor countries have misinformation.
Don't think that works since it's "open source". Of course you can put BS of sorts in there, but it'll get called out. At least from what i've seen.
|
Trump suggested that it would be perfectly fine to try US citizens at guantanamo today, as long they were suspected of terrorism.
A President Donald Trump might push for Americans accused of terrorism to be tried in military tribunal at the U.S. Navy base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the Republican nominee told the Miami Herald on Thursday.
“I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine,” Trump said in a brief interview ahead of his speech to home builders in Miami Beach.Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions. Changing the law would require an act of Congress.
In the wide-ranging interview focused on key South Florida issues, Trump continued to question climate change caused by humans. He said he plans to soon sit down with Cuban Americans in Miami to hash out a Cuba policy. And for the first time, he said Congress should set aside money to combat the Zika virus.
Asked about Guantánamo in the past, Trump has said he would like to “load it up with bad dudes.” He wouldn’t specify to the Herald whether as president he would again allow terrorism suspects captured abroad to be transferred to the detention center.
“I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them,” he said. President Barack Obama, he added, is “allowing people to get out that are terrible people.”
“Would you try to get the military commissions — the trial court there — to try U.S. citizens?” a reporter asked.
“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html
|
Trump doesn't like our right to a fair trail. Not even shocked.
|
We already drone strike US citizens, so that ship is sailing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2016 10:40 oBlade wrote:
Okay, but the attack subs as far as I can tell are the ones that you say were spotted, which precipitated this whole thread.
The Typhoon, there's only one in service? I can't see why it wouldn't be in the paper, looks like a pure error, one that I think we've just now shown is not a hard mistake to make. But I think it reduces the degree to which that paper was wrong at the time.
I wonder whether intelligence agencies fuck with Wikipedia so poor countries have misinformation.
There were probably three Typhoons in service at the time of the paper. Usually you retire submarines when you can have a replacement.
The wiki page isn't tampered with; if you look at the source it's the Russian naval website. But submarines are pretty damn near invisible so it's pretty easy to hide them if you want. So 11 active subs is likely an underestimate.
On August 12 2016 10:43 m4ini wrote:
Don't think that works since it's "open source". Of course you can put BS of sorts in there, but it'll get called out. At least from what i've seen.
It takes a clever man to fuck with Wikipedia and get away with it. But I've seen people pull it off so I wouldn't be surprised if a government could as well.
|
I didn't say a page had been vandalized, it was an unrelated thought.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At the very least, I've seen plenty of pages on Wikipedia with dubious, likely government-inspired claims. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is only good for information that is common knowledge, not disputed, and not overly technical.
|
On August 12 2016 12:01 LegalLord wrote:
At the very least, I've seen plenty of pages on Wikipedia with dubious, likely government-inspired claims. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is only good for information that is common knowledge, not disputed, and not overly technical.
Actually, there are some really well written, highly technical articles on Wikipedia in math and sciences, mostly because no one bothers vandalizing articles that contain esoteric math.
But I don't trust any articles about politics or non-ancient history on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone really cares about the Sumerians, but I don't expect articles about modern history to be reliable at all. History, particularly modern history, can too often be viewed through a political lens for me to rely on open source Wikipedia about it. I'll take a good book on a specific historical subject any day.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A lot of the wiki articles on math and science are good. The problem is that I've seen some rather significant errors on science topics that I happen to know well enough to be able to detect such errors. Which does make me suspicious about whether or not those errors also exist in the other topics. The math ones have generally been very solid but I've seen quite a few notable biology/chemistry/physics flaws. They are, at the least, less reliable than a textbook.
|
On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post.
it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post. it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago
Do I need to explain again how an actual assessment of Russian second strike capabilities, even if 10 years out of date, is not somehow trumped by what m4ini reckons, even if m4ini reckons it today, unless m4ini's musings on the subject are of a similar stature to the first source or he provides evidence that in any way disputes the first source? Because I feel like I shouldn't have to and that you should intuitively be able to grasp that m4ini going "yeah but I reckon that isn't true" is not, by itself, a sufficient response to the evidence I provided. Especially given that literally the entire of his argument was "but your source claims that there are only sporadic patrols and periods in which all submarines are in dock and that surely cannot be true given that a submarine was seen patrolling once".
But maybe I do need to explain that again. Let me know if you're struggling with this. It took him a while to grasp this too. Yes, sources can get out of date. But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered.
|
After watching that John Oliver video: just get rid of all nuclear weapons... how is this difficult, lol.
Didn't we establish a long time ago that if you're ever at the point where you'd want to use nuclear weapons, it's already too late? So all they're good for is blowing yourself up by accident, apparently.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:26 a_flayer wrote:
Just get rid of all nuclear weapons... how is this difficult, lol.
I did always want to see who would win in a war between India and Pakistan.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Nuclear weapons are basically about deterrence. Most nations with nuclear weapons say that they will use nukes if fired upon first, or if they face an existential conventional threat where their own nation is in danger. China, India, and North Korea are the only ones who pledged never to use nukes first. Just look at each country's nuclear doctrine to see how they intend to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
Above is probably about the most aggressive nuclear doctrine I've ever seen. If in the wrong hands that rationale could easily lead to nuclear war.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:44 LegalLord wrote:Nuclear weapons are basically about deterrence. Most nations with nuclear weapons say that they will use nukes if fired upon first, or if they face an existential conventional threat where their own nation is in danger. China, India, and North Korea are the only ones who pledged never to use nukes first. Just look at each country's nuclear doctrine to see how they intend to use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_OperationsAbove is probably about the most aggressive nuclear doctrine I've ever seen. If in the wrong hands that rationale could easily lead to nuclear war.
To ensure US and international operations are successful.
I can see why Obama thought that one might be a bit broad.
|
On August 12 2016 14:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 14:02 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post. it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago Do I need to explain again how an actual assessment of Russian second strike capabilities, even if 10 years out of date, is not somehow trumped by what m4ini reckons, even if m4ini reckons it today, unless m4ini's musings on the subject are of a similar stature to the first source or he provides evidence that in any way disputes the first source? Because I feel like I shouldn't have to and that you should intuitively be able to grasp that m4ini going "yeah but I reckon that isn't true" is not, by itself, a sufficient response to the evidence I provided. Especially given that literally the entire of his argument was "but your source claims that there are only sporadic patrols and periods in which all submarines are in dock and that surely cannot be true given that a submarine was seen patrolling once". But maybe I do need to explain that again. Let me know if you're struggling with this. It took him a while to grasp this too. Yes, sources can get out of date. But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered.
ok well you grabbed a single paper from 2006 while m4ni and legalord were going on at some length about how things are now so it seemed pretty apparent to me, the neutral observer, that you were wrong way before it was proven to you to your satisfaction. your argument seems to be that the burden was on them to disprove your assertions (again, based on that single paper) but i think objectively that seems just a bit silly given the nature of the subject matter and the relative lack of personal expertise on your part. there's some value in not getting trapped in some logic tunnel defending dubious starting premises, you know. if you want to explain how you were totally right except for that part where you were wrong again i'm down to read it though. i'm just chiming in from the peanut gallery because it's fun.
edit: now that i think about it, actually, this is a good example of why i find internet fetishization of "experts" so distasteful. experts are just cherry picked from out of time or place and used in discussions where the participants have no healthy intuition about what is and isn't reasonable or what is and isn't something that is highly context sensitive. not to throw shade on you, specifically, kwark. usually you are pretty good about such things. if i had to pick a name just to throw bombs i would point to plansix, who loves to wield his opinion around like a bludgeon but whenever somebody else makes an educated post he's quick to say something like "that's just your opinion, man, and you're a nobody on the internet"
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 14:16 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 14:02 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post. it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago Do I need to explain again how an actual assessment of Russian second strike capabilities, even if 10 years out of date, is not somehow trumped by what m4ini reckons, even if m4ini reckons it today, unless m4ini's musings on the subject are of a similar stature to the first source or he provides evidence that in any way disputes the first source? Because I feel like I shouldn't have to and that you should intuitively be able to grasp that m4ini going "yeah but I reckon that isn't true" is not, by itself, a sufficient response to the evidence I provided. Especially given that literally the entire of his argument was "but your source claims that there are only sporadic patrols and periods in which all submarines are in dock and that surely cannot be true given that a submarine was seen patrolling once". But maybe I do need to explain that again. Let me know if you're struggling with this. It took him a while to grasp this too. Yes, sources can get out of date. But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered. ok well you grabbed a single paper from 2006 while m4ni and legalord were going on at some length about how things are now so it seemed pretty apparent to me, the neutral observer, that you were wrong way before it was proven to you to your satisfaction. your argument seems to be that the burden was on them to disprove your assertions (again, based on that single paper) but i think objectively that seems just a bit silly given the nature of the subject matter and the relative lack of personal expertise on your part. there's some value in not getting trapped in some logic tunnel defending dubious starting premises, you know. if you want to explain how you were totally right except for that part where you were wrong again i'm down to read it though. i'm just chiming in from the peanut gallery because it's fun.
You could have just said "yes, you do need to explain it again, I clearly am still struggling with the difference between sources and feelings people on the internet have".
|
On August 12 2016 14:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 14:49 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 14:16 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 14:02 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post. it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago Do I need to explain again how an actual assessment of Russian second strike capabilities, even if 10 years out of date, is not somehow trumped by what m4ini reckons, even if m4ini reckons it today, unless m4ini's musings on the subject are of a similar stature to the first source or he provides evidence that in any way disputes the first source? Because I feel like I shouldn't have to and that you should intuitively be able to grasp that m4ini going "yeah but I reckon that isn't true" is not, by itself, a sufficient response to the evidence I provided. Especially given that literally the entire of his argument was "but your source claims that there are only sporadic patrols and periods in which all submarines are in dock and that surely cannot be true given that a submarine was seen patrolling once". But maybe I do need to explain that again. Let me know if you're struggling with this. It took him a while to grasp this too. Yes, sources can get out of date. But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered. ok well you grabbed a single paper from 2006 while m4ni and legalord were going on at some length about how things are now so it seemed pretty apparent to me, the neutral observer, that you were wrong way before it was proven to you to your satisfaction. your argument seems to be that the burden was on them to disprove your assertions (again, based on that single paper) but i think objectively that seems just a bit silly given the nature of the subject matter and the relative lack of personal expertise on your part. there's some value in not getting trapped in some logic tunnel defending dubious starting premises, you know. if you want to explain how you were totally right except for that part where you were wrong again i'm down to read it though. i'm just chiming in from the peanut gallery because it's fun. You could have just said "yes, you do need to explain it again, I clearly am still struggling with the difference between sources and feelings people on the internet have".
lol you posted exactly in response to what i was typing in my edit. you are too rich man.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:49 IgnE wrote:
edit: now that i think about it, actually, this is a good example of why i find internet fetishization of "experts" so distasteful. experts are just cherry picked from out of time or place and used in discussions where the participants have no healthy intuition about what is and isn't reasonable or what is and isn't something that is highly context sensitive.
Definitely a lot of truth to this. I won't do the thread the disservice of starting a pissing contest by calling out the people who I think are most guilty of this but it's a big issue. Context is a bitch and so is trying to explain why an "expert" opinion is wrong or irrelevant. Just look at how long it took to explain something with as trivial an explanation as "your info is out of date." And almost all of the "expert citations" would take a lot more effort to address than this one.
Just have to be able to see "expert" opinions for what they have to offer: a useful, but often flawed, interpretation of the facts. Some people treat them as objective truth and that's when things go to shit.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 12 2016 14:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 14:55 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 14:49 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 14:16 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 14:02 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose.
I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date. You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post. it was pretty apparent to me that you were on the wrong side after people started commenting on how your article was from a decade ago Do I need to explain again how an actual assessment of Russian second strike capabilities, even if 10 years out of date, is not somehow trumped by what m4ini reckons, even if m4ini reckons it today, unless m4ini's musings on the subject are of a similar stature to the first source or he provides evidence that in any way disputes the first source? Because I feel like I shouldn't have to and that you should intuitively be able to grasp that m4ini going "yeah but I reckon that isn't true" is not, by itself, a sufficient response to the evidence I provided. Especially given that literally the entire of his argument was "but your source claims that there are only sporadic patrols and periods in which all submarines are in dock and that surely cannot be true given that a submarine was seen patrolling once". But maybe I do need to explain that again. Let me know if you're struggling with this. It took him a while to grasp this too. Yes, sources can get out of date. But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered. ok well you grabbed a single paper from 2006 while m4ni and legalord were going on at some length about how things are now so it seemed pretty apparent to me, the neutral observer, that you were wrong way before it was proven to you to your satisfaction. your argument seems to be that the burden was on them to disprove your assertions (again, based on that single paper) but i think objectively that seems just a bit silly given the nature of the subject matter and the relative lack of personal expertise on your part. there's some value in not getting trapped in some logic tunnel defending dubious starting premises, you know. if you want to explain how you were totally right except for that part where you were wrong again i'm down to read it though. i'm just chiming in from the peanut gallery because it's fun. You could have just said "yes, you do need to explain it again, I clearly am still struggling with the difference between sources and feelings people on the internet have". lol you posted exactly in response to what i was typing in my edit. you are too rich man.
I, like most people, am influenced by what I read. The opinions I pass off as my own will generally be taken from people or sources that I deem respectable. This is, of course, an imperfect system but there is a limit to how much any individual can research a specific issue. If there really was an unbelievably broad media conspiracy against Trump, for example, I would actually have no way of knowing, having never met the man. I rely upon sources and judgement, the same as everyone else. On something like the earlier discussion in which a layman has very little interaction with the subject material it comes down to authoritative sources vs other authoritative sources. If mine are wrong or out of date then I welcome reading refutations from equally respectable sources because that way I can update my understanding to conform with the better information. I have no interest in being wrong for the sake of loyalty to a model that doesn't work. But you have to actually give the source and m4ini refused to do that for fucking ever, instead insisting on an argument about how a sighting of a submarine on patrol completely disproves a source arguing that while they're sometimes on patrol a lot of the time they're not.
TLDR: If you know something I don't then show me how you came to know it because we all use the same process to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
