How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine? • Hacker News Board

Re: How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine?

#11

Post by elmerfud » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 12:36 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #4

Wildgoose wrote: post #3

What this article is glibly ignoring is that the number of Ukrainian deaths are far higher. The US is fighting a proxy war with Russia to the last Ukrainian, in which everybody loses.

I'm confused... In what way would a country fighting for its freedom from a conquering neighbor intent on annexing it be a situation in which everybody loses? If they win, they keep their country and sovereignty. If they lose, the conquering neighbor takes their land and kills their leaders.

I think what the OP is implying is that there should never have been a war in Ukraine. Obviously they are fighting to survive and for the sovereignty of their nation.

I agree with they OP that this is a proxy war but it's ultimately between china and the USA. Both Russia and Ukraine are caught as pawns in a much larger game. You only have to look at which companies are allowed to bypass sanctions to sell and see it's a game being played with the lives of people. Very sad.

Re: How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine?

#12

Post by mopsi » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 1:18 PM UTC

Wildgoose wrote: post #10

celticninja wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think that is wrong, in general defenders lose less men (usually 1:3 ratio). In Bakhmut it is though that the russian losses were much higher, around 1:5. so your claim is nonsense with nothing to support it

The defenders are being heavily shelled by Russian artillery. Your claim that 5 times as many Russians are dying is nonsense. War is not a video game. People are dying and the only response appears to be to escalate.

Indeed it isn't a video game. Recent footage from Vuhledar shows how Russian tanks and IFVs drive one after another onto a minefield.[1] If anyone programmed NPCs to play like that, they'd get crushing reviews on Steam. In total, Russia lost more than 100 vehicles over several such suicide attacks, and this is only a very narrow sector of a long frontline.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10yldex/a_column_o...

[2] https://youtu.be/tjBZFIPVG2U?t=11

Re: How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine?

#13

Post by ghostwriter » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #8

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

now i am confused. Would you have cheered for saddam hussain when the world (except US) knew there were no WMDs and this was a straight up coup and a massacre and annihilation with what repercussions? If you want to hold russia to the lofty standards of human rights and sovereignty, why not look around and also start blaming others for doing so? Again, i am not saying dont blame russia because US was never blamed or…

This discussion derailment technique is called "whataboutism". It's a modified form of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Note how your whining about whataboutism effectively allows you to evade answering OP’s appeal to applying common standards for everyone, which is the only proper ethical response to hold. People who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with their hypocrisy and moral relativism whenever doing so serves their unsound political viewpoints.

Re: How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine?

#14

Post by kstenerud » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 3:45 PM UTC

ghostwriter wrote: post #13

kstenerud wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion derailment technique is called "whataboutism". It's a modified form of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Note how your whining about whataboutism effectively allows you to evade answering OP’s appeal to applying common standards for everyone , which is the only proper ethical response to hold. People who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with their hypocrisy and moral relativism whenever doing so serves their unsound political viewpoints.

This is what makes tu-quoque such an insidious logical fallacy: It allows someone to sidetrack the conversation by changing away from the original subject.

Had I followed along with this ruse, it would be trivial to keep piling on another country's bad behavior until the actual issue (Russia invading and annexing a neighbor) eventually gets buried in the noise from the resulting back-and-forth. And it often works because onlookers are fooled by the sleight-of-hand, while the accuser is left on the defensive because the subject has now shifted to something different of the interlocutor's choice that cannot be defended.

They're called logical fallacies because they give the appearance of logical argument, but are actually invalid and prove nothing (and are in fact deceptions). I suggest you read up on them; I posted a link to the tu-quoque fallacy earlier.

Re: How many Russians have been killed in Ukraine?

#15

Post by ghostwriter » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 2:49 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #14

ghostwriter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note how your whining about whataboutism effectively allows you to evade answering OP’s appeal to applying common standards for everyone , which is the only proper ethical response to hold. People who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with their hypocrisy and moral relativism whenever doing so serves their unsound political viewpoints.

This is what makes tu-quoque such an insidious logical fallacy: It allows someone to sidetrack the conversation by changing away from the original subject. Had I followed along with this ruse, it would be trivial to keep piling on another country's bad behavior until the actual issue (Russia invading and annexing a neighbor) eventually gets buried in the noise from the resulting back-and-forth. And it often works bec…

You are wrong about it not proving anything, as it proves that you're intentionally trying to trivialize the conflict into an event of its own, by hiding the context of the prior events caused by other actors playing on the same field in their chronological order.

Secondly, I'm yet to see a proof that it's indeed a fallacy, as you are yet to demonstrate how exactly OP's appeal to common standards is an unsound argument causing faulty reasoning. You're just evading the argument altogether whilst calling it a fallacy. I bet you're either cherry-picking definitions or not fully understanding the meaning of the term, especially when it serves your intent to hide your lack of consistency on the subject matter of military conflicts.