Ukraine – what you’re not being told
RT is a news outlet with headquarters in Moscow. It is funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. RT is owned and operated by the Russian government. It states in its mission statement, “RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]
I am always interested in hearing all sides of every issue. However, all claims and accusations must be accompanied by verifiable proof before they can be accepted as facts.
Here are the facts as we know them regarding claims in this post:
Fact: The eye witnesses in Odessa did not produce any evidence that the arsonists were sponsored by the US or that the US ordered the fires to be set.
Claim: “There are things going on in the Ukraine which the mouthpieces of the US and EU governments (CNN, BBC etc) will never show you.”
Fact: There are things going on in the Ukraine and elsewhere that the mouthpieces of the Russian, US and EU governments (RT, Novosti, CNN, BBC etc) will never fully report. There is no evidence any of them can be relied upon for the total truth and I believe most readers in this forum know this.
Claim: “There is much evidence that all of this is driven by the US.”
Fact: A government favoring closer ties to the EU replaced a Ukraine government favoring closer ties to the Russian Federation. Not surprising, it is in the best interest of the United States, as well as the EU, to support the new government in Kiev. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the Russian Federation to support the ousted government.
Who is doing the driving is clearly an unknown to all discerning civilian observers. Although your unwavering support for the Russian cause is your prerogative, your claims and accusations still require verifiable evidence.Hello, Howard. How nice to bump into you here.
Actually, I have no desire to prove that the statements in your post are supported or not. If your claims and opinions are not important enough to merit citations or some other supporting authority, then why should I or anyone else think they are important enough take seriously? On the other hand, if the effort is too much for you, like you said, that too is fine.
The originator of a positive assertion carries the burden of proving the claim is valid. {1} Without such support, opinions languish forever, not as facts but simply as unverified claims.
Thank you, Howard, for responding to my post. It is always a pleasure for me to share ideas with you.
{1} http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ … -Proof.htm {See “Shifting the Burden of Proof.")
G’evenin’ Sannyasinman.
What is missing from both of your latest links is proof. Adding more claims is not supplying proof. The two are not the same.
As a child, I was convinced that the Tooth Fairy was real. The morning after I placed my tooth under my pillow, I found a quarter, tangible “proof” that the “claim” was true.
Today, I am convinced that the Tooth Fairy “claim” and the “proof” were both false. What has change? I now know how to recognize what constitutes “proof.” If you want to have your assertions accepted as facts, supply the same caliber of proof you would demand from me if I claimed the Tooth Fairy was real.Sannyasinman,
I was totally in agreement with you up until “supported by who?” followed almost immediately by “Why?”
John Brennan was in Kiev four weeks ago according to a White House statement. Did you notice how you followed that with “Why?” Unanswered questions are typical from conspiracy theorists because they normally do not have any answers. You DO NOT know why he was there and you wish to imply with a question mark that you do when actually you don’t. I do not know why he was there so don’t feel badly. If you would like some stimulating speculation about why he was there read Forbes. {1} However, they do not know why he was there either!
You seem willing to rely on RT.com, a Russian news outlet, as an infallible source. The link you provided leads to an article written by a guest journalist. His opinions about what is going on in Ukraine are only his opinions. He is not even a government official who has access to meaningful knowledge. All that you have is more claims and no proof.
Read more about CIA secrecy before you believe RIA Novosti, the Moscow Times, the Voice of Russia, or an unknown source “close to Ukraine’s security agencies” all know the details regarding the CIA director’s activities in Kiev in mid-April.
Ron Paul is a diehard Libertarian and a devout isolationist. Nuff said!
Then you wrote:
“You believed in tooth fairies, but don’t anymore? Then let me ask you a question.
Is it more likely that tooth fairies exist or that the 911 official story is true?
If you want to really sharpen your "proof teeth", go and examine the “proof” in the official 911 fairy story.”
Thank you for suggesting I examine the official 9/11 story. I have already been there and done that! It should occur to you by now that most of your posts are unsupported accusations. When you bring up 9/11 fairy stories, I rest my case.
{1}
http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan … has-begun/Howard,
Really! Do you have verifiable proof to support this claim?
Howard,
I prefer to address my comments directly to you rather than to another poster.
I consider you a colleague and a respected wordsmith who is a valuable contributor to this platform. You are intelligent, tuned into current events and not overly partisan. To your credit, I do not think I have ever seen you stoop to irrationally charged terms akin to “wingnut” or “lefties.” I thank you for your critique of my forum posts and I will return the favor in the same spirit.
This forum does not discuss scientific theories. To claim that the scientific method should be applied here is ludicrous mostly because this method requires that claims are accompanied by proof and you do not follow the scientific method yourself.
Rather, the discourse in these threads centers on personal opinions and intangible conclusions. The conversation seldom involves absolutes. The intellectual objective is NOT to arrive at a valid scientific conclusion by following the Scientific Method but to provide good justification to a claim, which will stand up to criticism and justify a favorable reception.
Jurors do not use the scientific method to make decisions based on the evidence presented to them in court. They rely on abductive reasoning, i.e. making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation. {2}
I try to follow a process that includes six interrelated components for presenting personal non-scientific conclusions for discussion:
1. A claim that represents conclusions whose merit must be established.
2. Evidence (facts and/or data) that represent a supporting foundation for the claim.
3. A statement connecting the data to the claim.
4. Verifiable backing designed to certify the statement expressed in 3. The backing must be introduced when the statement itself is not convincing enough to the readers.
5. Rebuttal statements to establish the limits to be applied to the original claim.
6. Qualifiers, words, or phrases that express the speaker's degree of certainty about the claim. Such words or phrases include "possible," "probably," "impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," or "necessarily." Obviously, “definitely” conveys a greater degree of force than “presumably." In as much as the bulk of this explanation is NOT original material and it is NOT enclosed in quotation marks, I am obligated to give credit where credit is due. {1}
The first three components are essential when advocating a position on any issue. You even credit my approach as both “common” and consistent regarding these requirements. “He [Quilligrapher] appears to already been inundated in a mindset and he goes about selectively gathering "facts" to support that mindset.” Sounds like items 1 and 2 to me. LOL Items 4, 5 and 6 are not always necessary.
Many posters here resist when pressed to provide evidence to support assertions (item 2) because it forces them to test their conclusions in the real world with real supporting authority and facts. Too many prefer to express their opinions in a way that implies they are indisputable and anyone who disagrees is lacking. In particular, I encourage finding discrepancies in supplied supporting links as a valid method to determine if the data provided is flawed or, perhaps, not totally applicable. This is called a rebuttal and it is an important component in a discussion when the discrepancy challenges the central claim. It certainly should not be a ploy to side-track discussion. It is the best way to point out how to modify the original claim so it is not contradicted or weakened by the supporting data.
Howard, I appreciate your well articulated posts. They contain opinions worthy of our attention. Those opinions, however, are not sacrosanct but they are important enough to warrant supporting facts and data capable of validation.
I hope your Mother’s Day has been filled with cheer.
{1} http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Toulmin.pdf
{2} https://butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsh … oning.html
Related Discussions
- 10
SAY NO TO WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, NO TO H. RES. 758
US – Russia relations have deteriorated severely in the past decade and they are about to get worse, if the House passes H. Res. 758.NATO encirclement, the US-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a US...
- 23
Do you support US intervention in Ukraine?
There has been a coup d'etat in Ukraine with the democratically elected president deposed. This illegitimate goverment has now been invited to Washington . . . US military jets have flown to Poland in a show of "solidarity". Despite what you see on CNN, Russia has not invaded...
- 15
Ukraine – Yet more lies from governments and mainstream media
Contrary to what most world governments and mainstream media are telling you, there IS NO build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, as these eye witness accounts from USA journalists will tell you . . http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain … dup-n67336Inform yourself. Look for the...
- 20
POTUS Immunity? If the SC is not a Rightwing Tribunal, why are we here
It was interesting to note a recent Supreme Court ruling:“On the self-executing issue, the unsigned majority “per curiam” decision is not merely evasion, but error. It rewrites Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Where the section says that Congress may enact legislation to enforce the amendment, the...
- 20
Foreign Policies / 2024 Debate Issue.
Neither candidate has zeroed in on the best way to deal with current foreign affairs/wars. What will JDT do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will JDT do about Ukraine /Russia?What will Harris do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will Harris do about Ukraine/Russia?After all, "Before he/(she) enter on...
- 10
NRA member, Another Russian arrested
A Washington-based pro-gun activist affiliated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been charged with spying in the US for Russia.Maria Butina was charged with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian federation within the US without prior notification to the attorney general.Butina,...