Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

[superrific]

To quote @nycfan "Zero comparison to Pearl Harbor"

I genuinely cannot understand how educated people could fuck this up.

except for the comparison I made, which you haven't attempted to rebut. All you've done is attach conclusory labels. And made basic errors of logic that nobody with an age in double digits should ever make.

 

[dukeman92]

except for the comparison I made, which you haven't attempted to rebut. All you've done is attach conclusory labels. And made basic errors of logic that nobody with an age in double digits should ever make.

I'm not going to attempt to rebut it. To do that would lend credence to the original comparison. And once again, all you've done is speak to someone in a way that nobody with an age in double digits would ever do in person. But you're the greatest, Sups!

 

[superrific]

I'm not going to attempt to rebut it. To do that would lend credence to the original comparison.

Such a lame copout. Didn't know randman posted under this alias.

If you could articulate an objection you would. But you can't, because none exists, because it's neither awful nor false to note that Russia in 2025 and Pearl Harbor in 1941 decimated the respective countries' aerial capacities in one day.

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

I'm not going to attempt to rebut it. To do that would lend credence to the original comparison. And once again, all you've done is speak to someone in a way that nobody with an age in double digits would ever do in person. But you're the greatest, S

You wrote this: "Equating what happened yesterday to Pearl Harbor is quite possibly the biggest airball of all time. Yikes."

Is that your model of what respectful discourse looks like? You mock me, you will get mocked. You are 100% incorrect and it's not a close question -- as evidenced by your complete inability to offer a substantive point. Calling names is all you do.

It is not my fault that you posted stupidity. You did that, all by yourself. Perhaps you want your stupidity to be consequence-free, which it would be except you aimed your stupidity directly at me with quite an insult. Thus the stupidity will be identified and called out.

"Equate, compare, semantics" is one of the most idiotic things posted on this board in quite a while. I didn't do that. You did that. You did that all by yourself. Don't get angry at me for your shortcomings.

 

[mynameisbond]

except for the comparison I made, which you haven't attempted to rebut. All you've done is attach conclusory labels. And made basic errors of logic that nobody with an age in double digits should ever make.

Were we already at war with Japan for two years when they bombed Pearl Harbor? I must have missed that day of history class. The rest of the analogy fails unless that is true.

 

[Kingpin]

I was hopeful that yesterday's attack was just the tip of the iceberg. I think Ukraine has more up their sleeve.

I agree. I think they have other stealth drones already inside Russia just waiting for the opportune time.

 

[superrific]

The rest of the analogy fails unless that is true.

Sigh. Et tu? Y'all need some serious refreshing about the nature of an analogy.

1. Analogies do not have to be perfect to be apt -- indeed, if they are not perfect, they wouldn't be analogies. They would be descriptions.

2. Analogies can be apt in part and inapt in other parts. In fact, this is common. Refer to my post above about analogies in law. Judges developed environmental law in England initially by analogy to the escape of fenced animals. Last I checked, there are some ways in which smoke emitted from a brickworks are like loose cows, but there are many more ways in which they are different. Yet, that was the analogy that was used and it's still used today.

3. Here are a couple of other analogies that people use even though they are inapt in the details:

Appeasement. We say that Trump is appeasing Putin like Chamberlain did Hitler. Is that bullshit, because it is more or less the same analogy and it has the same inaptness (namely, Europe was not at war during Munich)

We say that Trump's firing of US attorneys was like the Saturday Night Massacre. Is that an exact comparison, or are there apt and inapt parts to it?

 

[dukeman92]

Such a lame copout. Didn't know randman posted under this alias.

If you could articulate an objection you would. But you can't, because none exists, because it's neither awful nor false to note that Russia in 2025 and Pearl Harbor in 1941 decimated the respective countries' aerial capacities in one day.

The two situations are so obviously incomparable... anyone drawing this conclusion obviously knows very little about what happened at Pearl and/or the events which led up to Ukraine's attack on Russia. If calling me lame for refusing to lend credence to such an obviously flawed mischaracterization of the two events allows you to thump your chest and claim internet superiority, have at it.

 

[nycfan]

Sigh. Et tu? Y'all need some serious refreshing about the nature of an analogy.

1. Analogies do not have to be perfect to be apt -- indeed, if they are not perfect, they wouldn't be analogies. They would be descriptions.

2. Analogies can be apt in part and inapt in other parts. In fact, this is common. Refer to my post above about analogies in law. Judges developed environmental law in England initially by analogy to the escape of fenced animals. Last I checked, there are some ways in which smoke emitted from a brickworks are like loose cows, but there are many more ways in which they are different. Yet, that was the analogy that was used and it's still used today.

3. Here are a couple of other analogies that people use even though they are inapt in the details:

Appeasement. We say that Trump is appeasing Putin like Chamberlain did Hitler. Is that bullshit, because it is more or less the same analogy and it has the same inaptness (namely, Europe was not at war during Munich)

We say that Trump's firing of US attorneys was like the Saturday Night Massacre. Is that an exact comparison, or are there apt and inapt parts to it?

My objection to your analogy is that your logic relies on stripping away key context differentiating a surprise attack preceding any declared war versus a surprise attack (by the victim of invasion) during a prolonged war. If we were arguing how far a baseball home run with an exit velocity of 105 mph should fly and your argument relied on assuming that the game is played in a vacuum, so there is no resistance, ok, fine, we don’t live in a vacuum but we’re just shooting the breeze anyway.

But in an actual war the context is exactly what the propagandists promoting the comparison want people to miss or ignore so they see Russia now and the U.S. then as brothers in arms, equivalent victims of a devious sneak attack, even though there is an obvious critical context intentionally elided by propagandists that undermines the analogy.

To me, your innocent but context-free analogy reinforces (or even creates a permission structure for) dishonest propaganda that is intending that the context be stricken from the conversation for nefarious purpose. Hence my objection.

 

[superrific]

My objection to your analogy is that your logic relies on stripping away key context differentiating a surprise attack preceding any declared war versus a surprise attack (by the victim of invasion) during a prolonged war. If we were arguing how far a baseball home run with an exit velocity of 105 mph should fly and your argument relied on assuming that the game is played in a vacuum, so there is no resistance, ok, fine, we don’t live in a vacuum but we’re just shooting the breeze anyway.

But in an actual war the context is exactly what the propagandists promoting the comparison want people to miss or ignore so they see Russia now and the U.S. then as brothers in arms, equivalent victims of a devious sneak attack, even though there is an obvious critical context intentionally elided by propagandists that undermines the analogy.

To me, your innocent but context-free analogy reinforces (or even creates a permission structure for) dishonest propaganda that is intending that the context be stricken from the conversation for nefarious purpose. Hence my objection.

Thank you for the response. I must be missing something here. Obviously I do not want to reinforce dishonest propaganda. It just doesn't seem to me that it's the only way to look at it, given that the analogy also occurred to me.

I guess the question is as follows: is there severability between the different facets of Pearl Harbor? There's the narrow military outcome (that was my thought), and then the broader moral sense of it being a surprise attack of aggression? My analogy only applies to the former and I wouldn't think it would have anything to say about the obviously inapt latter point. If "Pearl Harbor" fundamentally links those two ideas, then the analogy doesn't play. I think of it as an event rather than a concept, but maybe that's not standard.

Maybe the problem is that I can't imagine anyone trying to claim that this attack was like Pearl Harbor in terms of aggression. It's beyond ridiculous, so I don't give it any thought. And if I'm wrong about that, then I can see why people would be eager to reject the analogy. It's not an airball though.

 

[superrific]

The two situations are so obviously incomparable... anyone drawing this conclusion obviously knows very little about what happened at Pearl and/or the events which led up to Ukraine's attack on Russia.

Oh go fuck yourself. I know the relevant timelines very well, thank you. All you are doing is focusing on the analogic discrepancy to the exclusion of the analogy itself. Well, every analogy is inapt in some ways. It doesn't make the analogy wrong in every way.

 

[dukeman92]

I know the relevant timelines very well, thank you.

Okay.

 

[nycfan]

“…
Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social account that his call with Putin lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes.

• "We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides...President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields", Trump wrote.…”

——-
Truth Social is super glitchy but I am not finding this post.

 

[nycfan]

It sure if it got deleted of just the buggy Truth Social issues but I am not seeing this post on Trump’s Truth Social feed.

 

[lawtig02]

It sure if it got deleted of just the buggy Truth Social issues but I am not seeing this post on Trump’s Truth Social feed.

Jesus Christ. This guy is SO far over his head. I've literally never been more afraid of a nuclear war than I am right now, and it's all because we elected a president who has no FUCKING clue what he's doing in Russia and Iran.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Sounds like Putin knows Trump really wants a deal with Iran and will use his assistance to that end as leverage against Ukraine in any Ukraine/Russia negotiations.

 

[lawtig02]

It sure if it got deleted of just the buggy Truth Social issues but I am not seeing this post on Trump’s Truth Social feed.

I hope I'm panicking unnecessarily about this, but I'm not sure there's been a more terrifying communication in the nuclear era than this one.

 

[dukeman92]

Why is he speaking to Putin about Iran? Why are we normalizing the relationship this administration has with Russia?

 

[lawtig02]

Why is he speaking to Putin about Iran? Why are we normalizing the relationship this administration has with Russia?

Those are outstanding questions. I'm deeply hoping this is another TACO. Because that post is fucking terrifying.