GabonX wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?
I do
BigBallinStalin wrote:WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)
Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.
And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.
You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in
this post you've
denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...
With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.
I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.
Sure, Gabon.
In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.
'Intervention is necessary!'
Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.
This Gabon refutes.
But then, he does exactly what I'm talking about:
The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.
Take WW2 Hitler's rise, and argue that the benefits would've offset the costs had intervention occurred earlier. (this is using the counter-factual). He's doing exactly what I said he would, but he rejects that.
This is ridiculous.
Then there's still the problem of false equivalence. As he imagines the benefits of intervention at time X in a WW2 setting, he conveniently forgets that the world of WW2 and today involve different incentives, institutions, and organizations regarding conflict and peace. He's advancing an apples to oranges comparison while asserting that he knows what 'false equivalence' and 'apples to oranges' mean. He simply doesn't. This is evidence from his very words.
That and having hindsight is real cute, but then we have to ask, "how could they know that intervention at time X would be best? And if they did, was it even possible? " Knowledge isn't perfect, yet for Gabon, his case requires perfect knowledge (as shown through the argument he was advancing).