Then why are you spreading unconfirmed claims? That is not nice. The city was encircled by Russians on 1st March. Could you explain me how and why AFU destroyed half-million city just in one week? :) If you’re really honest here do at least some fact-checking.
throwaway62654 stated that Russians destroyed Mariupol.
One doesn’t have to be an expert to see which side caused more death. Mariupol. All war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine pale in comparison to an entire city leveled to the ground. While people were still there.
You opposed and made the statement about possible involvement of Ukrainians.
Leveling Mariupol to the ground is a war crime that’s allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine. I first heard that claim from a Russian friend who sourced it through a relative of a friend who was on the ground. Russian media is also making the claim. It’s unfortunate that EU censorship makes it harder to know that this is what Russian media is saying and thus to know what “war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine” involve.
Neither of the two makes me confident that Ukraine is responsible, but it certainly falls into the category of war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine.
According to Russian sources all the war crimes are done by Ukrainians. Does it make Ukraine a subject to praesumptio culpae? Is it a reasonable framing? Should we from the beginning include Ukraine into that category? Should Ukraine always prove that it didn’t do all the horrible things while being invaded?
I can write an article that Mariupol was allegedly destroyed by North Korea (sorry for using absurdity). Will you include North Korea to the list of possible actors? Will it be useful? If not than what is the difference?
Should Ukraine always prove that it didn’t do all the horrible things while being invaded?
I don’t think anybody in this discussion is operating with the authority of the Ukrainian government, so this is a quite strange claim. I’m not calling on the Ukrainians to prove anything anywhere in this post.
I’m able to distinguish my epistemics from claims for what people should do and don’t mix that together. We are arguing here on a rationality forum and it’s helpful for rational reasoning to be able to think clearly about what’s true.
I’m not calling on the Ukrainians to prove anything anywhere in this post.
Yeah but by assuming things (directly or not) you are framing the discussion in a way which significantly influences perception of the topic.
I’m able to distinguish my epistemics from claims for what people should do and don’t mix that together. We are arguing here on a rationality forum and it’s helpful for rational reasoning to be able to think clearly about what’s true.
I can substitute should with is it rational if it drives the point home better :) Or I can expand shoulds to should we dilute our attention and efforts with statements which are most certainly false to find the truth.
Anyway I see we are kinda stuck here and I have nothing more to add.
I’d like to object that it’s rational. Sooner or later any lie will be revealed and the reputation/trust will be lost irrevocably. Without trust Ukraine will lose external and internal support and then the war. The risks are just not worth it.
It would be great if war propaganda lies would lead to irrevocably lost trust, but in most cases that’s not what happens. Most people excuse lies from people they consider to be on their side in war.
In any case, at the start of this war, we had false propaganda stories like the Ghost of Kyiv. They didn’t choose the strategy of not telling any lies and I’m not aware of any army doing that during a war.
Yes, they didn’t. And I think the story about the Ghost of Kyiv is net negative. But not all propaganda is equal. One thing is to lie about a mythic mighty pilot to comfort people (which is still bad imo) and completely other thing is to say that Ukrainians destroyed Mariupol, killed people in Bucha or spend millions to vilify Ukraine and poison EU in information space.
Then why are you spreading unconfirmed claims? That is not nice.
The city was encircled by Russians on 1st March. Could you explain me how and why AFU destroyed half-million city just in one week? :)
If you’re really honest here do at least some fact-checking.
throwaway62654 was talking about “war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine”. I made a statement about what crimes have been alleged.
It’s useful to be able to discuss what has been alledged and what has not been alleged.
throwaway62654 stated that Russians destroyed Mariupol.
You opposed and made the statement about possible involvement of Ukrainians.
According to Russian sources all the war crimes are done by Ukrainians. Does it make Ukraine a subject to praesumptio culpae? Is it a reasonable framing? Should we from the beginning include Ukraine into that category? Should Ukraine always prove that it didn’t do all the horrible things while being invaded?
I can write an article that Mariupol was allegedly destroyed by North Korea (sorry for using absurdity). Will you include North Korea to the list of possible actors? Will it be useful? If not than what is the difference?
I don’t think anybody in this discussion is operating with the authority of the Ukrainian government, so this is a quite strange claim. I’m not calling on the Ukrainians to prove anything anywhere in this post.
I’m able to distinguish my epistemics from claims for what people should do and don’t mix that together. We are arguing here on a rationality forum and it’s helpful for rational reasoning to be able to think clearly about what’s true.
Yeah but by assuming things (directly or not) you are framing the discussion in a way which significantly influences perception of the topic.
I can substitute should with is it rational if it drives the point home better :)
Or I can expand shoulds to should we dilute our attention and efforts with statements which are most certainly false to find the truth.
Anyway I see we are kinda stuck here and I have nothing more to add.
It’s rational for Ukraine to engage in war propaganda that’s not always true. That’s generally what most countries do when they are at war.
I’d like to object that it’s rational. Sooner or later any lie will be revealed and the reputation/trust will be lost irrevocably. Without trust Ukraine will lose external and internal support and then the war. The risks are just not worth it.
It would be great if war propaganda lies would lead to irrevocably lost trust, but in most cases that’s not what happens. Most people excuse lies from people they consider to be on their side in war.
In any case, at the start of this war, we had false propaganda stories like the Ghost of Kyiv. They didn’t choose the strategy of not telling any lies and I’m not aware of any army doing that during a war.
Yes, they didn’t. And I think the story about the Ghost of Kyiv is net negative. But not all propaganda is equal. One thing is to lie about a mythic mighty pilot to comfort people (which is still bad imo) and completely other thing is to say that Ukrainians destroyed Mariupol, killed people in Bucha or spend millions to vilify Ukraine and poison EU in information space.
https://www.civic-synergy.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Words-and-Wars.-Ukraine-Facing-Kremlin-Propaganda.pdf