Posted on 04/24/2022 4:47:21 PM PDT by conservative98
Do you expect me to read all that garbage you keep throwing around in an ad nauseam ad infinitum fashion?
Thanks for providing the latest example of a priori fallacy reasoning, troll.
You’re the one who’s claiming that “a priori reasoning” is inherently fallacious. That’s only when you’re dealing with purely empirical data.
But again, as previously stated: what’s informing dforest’s post? America’s recent performance in foreign wars over the last few decades, and the consequences that our meddling has had in other countries.
You may not agree with their conclusions, nor think that America’s actions have caused as much havoc as dforest may think. But it’s still empirical data.
Using recent history to determine ‘maybe America should back off and stop meddling and let other countries deal with their own conflicts’ is hardly fallacious thinking, no matter how much you lambast others for having “pedestrian intellects.”
I'm pretty sure it's more akin to "it's not worth getting entangled in foreign conflict because America keeps cocking it up and leaving behind a bigger mess than when we first got there. See recent history over the past few decades as my evidence." How is that fallacious reasoning?
I wanted to vote for Huffines, but the threat of “Beto” clouded my judgment.
what’s informing dforest’s post?
***It is as simple as: There’s this foreign conflict over there, and we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts, no matter how unique nor prevailing nor consequential they might be, regardless of learnings from history such as Sudetenland, it doesn’t matter because it’s a foreign conflict and we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts.
I see no evidence of sound reasoning being brought to bear on the facts of the case. He has an opinion and facts be damned. Same with Alberta. It is a logical fallacy, as obvious as an invasion from Russia is a violation of the Budapest Agreement.
It is fallacious because it does not take the facts of the matter into consideration. So when we try to consider and weigh the facts of the matter, we run into logical fallacy after logical fallacy. It ends up with: It’s a foreign entanglement and we shouldn’t get involved with foreign entanglements. Going backwards from there, one asks “was there ever a foreign entanglement that was right to get involved with, and why” and the lack of critical thinking becomes incredibly apparent. On every edge of factuality and reasoning, there is circular reasoning, a priori fallacy, and ridiculous specious approaches to simple facts.
Here is what you do not have the capacity to understand. All this crap you post won’t make Americans jump on board for another round of burying our dead for a foreign country.
That is common sense. While many feel for the average people of Ukraine, and so far (we actually have no choice) haven’t begrudged some weapons and aid being sent, doesn’t mean that people want a major war and our troops involved overseas.
You just have no capacity to understand that because you have to be right and cannot accept others do not see it your way. You remind me of a peevish child. Why don’t you kick and scream and hurl some more insults.
That always works to get people to see things your way.
ho hum, a priori reasoning
boring
Do you expect me to read all that garbage you keep throwing around in an ad nauseam ad infinitum fashion?
No, I expect you to continue to willfully and deliberately push your false claims, in your ad nauseam infinitum fashion. I expect you to do your best to not discuss the actual text of the official documents. I am merely documenting that your claims are false, and removing any excuse for your make believe ignorance of the facts, as proven by the documents.
You are like a street walker who gets busted on one corner and simply sets up shop on another corner and starts over as a virgin, selling your wares. I expect you to continue to post your falsehoods on new threads, and I expect to continue to post the documents proving your claims are lies.
As shown by the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine obligated itself to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty long before the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine did not accede to the NPT for security but, along with Belarus and Khazhakstan, acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation as a condition for obtaining sovereignty.
As shown by Minsk I and Minsk II, Ukraine also took on obligations as part of a ceasefire agreement in 2014-2015, after one of its revolutions which overthrew the lawful government. The Budapest Memorandum was with a government overthrown by subsequent revolution. There is no agreement with the current, post-revolution government of Ukraine.
While you like to maintain that Ukraine should go back to the status quo ante before the Budapest Agreement, that would go back to before they were a recognized sovereign nation. You say they should get their nukes back. The international community was firm, including both the United States and Russia, that none of the breakaway USSR republics would be recognized without acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear nation. Their only choice was to get rid of them aall, or be ostracized. All three got rid of them all. Ukraine tried to make their accession conditional and the United States and Russia firmly rejected the effort. Ukraine rescinded the conditions and acceded to the NPT for recognized sovereign status.
The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. It is a diplomatic Memorandum. It contains no obligation by the United States, or anyone, to militarily assist or intervene in case of Ukraine being a victim of aggression. It explicitly provides that such a matter will be referred to the UN Security Council for action. That is what was done.
For today's lesson, we have the NATO Charter.
The NATO Charter, Article 1, requires its members "to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
The actions taken by the United States are not NATO authorized actions. Its actions in intervening to arm one party to a conflict between two non-NATO parties, is inconsistent with the NATO Charter and incurs a danger of a retaliatory strike against a NATO member. It is not a United Nations authorized action. The UN Security Council considered the matter and did not authorize such action. NATO, as a body did not authorize such action. It is being performed by individual NATO members, outside the NATO charter.
The NATO Charter, Article 5 provides that, "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked...."
A party to NATO is not authorized to engage in behavior which creates a danger of provoking a strike upon a NATO member, and invoke Article 5 to place all members in a state of war. The act would require the prior consent of the collective NATO members.
In engaging in provocative intervention, without unanimous approval of all NATO members, contrary to the Charter, should a wider war be provoked by such provocative intervention in violation of the law of neutrality and the NATO Charter, the NATO members may be absolved of responsibility to come to the defense of the offending member, or members, who provoked the retaliatory attack.
Individual NATO members have provided military support to Ukraine. NATO as an organization has not authorized said provisions.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
The North Atlantic TreatyWashington D.C. - 4 April 1949
04 Apr. 1949 - Last updated: 10 Apr. 2019 14:16
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 6 1
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.
ad infinitum, ad nauseum troll
It is good to see documents render you mute, as with a sock stuck in your mouth.
Only problem is that his bullshiite doesn’t refute anything. He is just throwing up a wall of text. He’s been trolling and harassing me for days. I am surprised you are going along with it. If you want, I’ll nominate you to moderate a debate between me and that asshole. But you’d need a second moderator, since you have bought into the a priori fallacy stuff.
It's the source documents! They're relevant to the matters under discussion!
He’s been trolling and harassing me for days. I am surprised you are going along with it.
If you honestly believe that to be 'trolling and harassment', that's quite frankly embarrassing. Your behavior has been far more troll-like to be quite honest.
If you want, I’ll nominate you to moderate a debate between me and that asshole.
You've already ignored the primary sources in favor of your own false interpretation. What would be the point? Your mind's been made up.
Dude, I stopped reading his posts several days ago. If he is posting sumthin worth reading then he wasted all his good will and he’s only gonna reach lurkers and a priori reasoners like you.
The point would be to have rational discussion, and that guy doesn’t know how to do it so we would need a heavily moderated forum. I can see you’re probably not quite suited to it since you’ve already taken his side of things.
Your level of projection is unreal.
I’m not projecting about you buying into a priori reasoning. Anyone who wants to can look through our recent interactions.
So if you want to move forward, you’ll need to find a more suitable moderator of the discussion between me and your new a$$troll friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.