News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So you're playing out what you think military strategists believe? Can you show me the well-respected military strategists who support you in this?
Okay, come on man... You can either begin to sealion me or you can engage in good faith we can have a healthy discussion as adults. Since I'm putting quite a bit of effort in this conversation and not getting anything in return but denial — there really isn't anything in this conversation for me unless something changes and quickly.
That is,
But hey, if you want to play that game I can play it, too:
Can you show me the well-respected military strategists who support you in this? Who think illogically and not in terms of risk and probability?
What in my scenario is actually unreasonable. Do you believe that is unreasonable, and if so, why?
Why do you believe M.A.D. theory would not hold up in this case and that the relative risk of Scenario 2 is greater than Scenario 1?
But sure, finally, I can give you an example: General LeMay and Robert McNamara responsible for the successful bombing of Japan, both by conventional and nuclear means. They employed risk calculus both in terms of their own bombers versus the relative risk to the opposition. This is pretty standard MO.
I am not going to play gish gallop with you and respond to dozens of points when you can't respond to my single points without adding 15 more, but your "YOU show ME the expert YOU have" when I didn't claim I was going with any military strategists at all shows you're the one not discussing things in good faith here.
If you can't back up a claim like that with evidence, don't make the claim.
I'll give you two responses then; one brief, one not so brief that explains my thought process for the closure of this discussion.
Let's cut to the chase. In such discussions, we basically have 3 options:
You're not venturing down a path that is convincing to me, and I'm apparently not convincing you with my strategy — either because (a) my transmission is poor, (b) reception is poor, or (c) I'm wrong and cannot see it. But unfortunately the arguments presented to me have not been compelling for me to see better logic.
Ultimately that you perceive me to be gish gallloping and I perceive you to be sealioning me means this discussion has been exhausted. I have no problem with healthy skepticism; but when you're trying to deflect sound reasoning (at least uncontested) by requests of evidence that aren't even necessary but rather proven by logic itself (what "reputable" military strategist DOESN'T use probability and proportionality in risk assessment!???), then that to me signals lazy posturing than it does healthy skepticism . You see the problem is you aren't just remaining a neutral skeptic; you're taking the opposite stance but not backing up your position in any remote way — neither with evidence, nor logic & reason I have at least done — that your position is the less risky of the two proposals.
So I suppose with that we leave it here and I'll oblige you with the last word. Have a nice day.
I didn't think you'd find anyone to back you up.