You asked, why didn’t he? I’m saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might’ve tried, or he might’ve not. It’s not a question of which side says what, it’s the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.
We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.
I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.
Again, that is not fact. You can’t just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.
We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.
You’re experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - mental discomfort because you can’t square the existence of two conflicting things:
Your original implication that Stalin was a power hungry monster who seized power.
the fact that he attempted to resign, multiple times.
You asked, why didn’t he? I’m saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might’ve tried, or he might’ve not. It’s not a question of which side says what, it’s the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.
I honestly don’t understand that this is a response to.
We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.
No. We accept that the Holocaust really happened because of the absolute mountain of evidence. We don’t accept things as fact solely because they’re agreed on.
I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.
No. You tried to say that no one can really know anything. You haven’t admitted to your personal ignorance on the topic you chose.
Again, that is not fact. You can’t just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.
I don’t understand what this is in response to, it doesn’t seem related to the question at hand.
We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.
I’ll eat my literal hat if you can find an academic field that explicitly looks for consensus over facts or truth.
That evidence was collected by people, and can be falsified. If it had all been gathered by one group, that would be a problem. The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.
Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?
You’re trying to distract from avoiding the question at hand.
The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.
You’d accept as fact anything the Soviets and U$ agree on?
You’ll need to accept that “Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on the subject are caused by the lack of comprehension of the real nature she organization of the communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers was merely the captain of a team…”.
A possibility does not require evidence. It is a “could be”, a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.
If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It’s how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.
When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It’s just like someone saying “I need evidence for why the bible is false.”
You’ve unfortunately been banned from lemmygrad, so I won’t be able to see any of your replies.
“I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.” isn’t the statement of blind faith. Your stance on Stalin, ironically, is.
While you’re wistfully dealing with our separation, please think of two things:
Your own argument demands that you admit your stance on Stalin is wrong. You haven’t acknowledged that for several comments now.
You’ve been unable to respond to my initial question because you’ll have to drop your stance. Stalin cannot both be a power-seizing maniac, and someone who begs the Politboro to let him resign. We know the one is true. Can you accept your ideas are false?
We do not “know” one is true. This is exactly what blind faith is.
I can admit when I do not know something, I have admitted that I do not (and cannot) know the truth of if Stalin attempted to resign or not. He may have, he may not have. I do not know, but it sounds suspicious. I am not the one with the problem admitting ignorance though. I simply do not share your faith in the source.
You asked, why didn’t he? I’m saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might’ve tried, or he might’ve not. It’s not a question of which side says what, it’s the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.
We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.
I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.
Again, that is not fact. You can’t just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.
We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.
You’re experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - mental discomfort because you can’t square the existence of two conflicting things:
I honestly don’t understand that this is a response to.
No. We accept that the Holocaust really happened because of the absolute mountain of evidence. We don’t accept things as fact solely because they’re agreed on.
No. You tried to say that no one can really know anything. You haven’t admitted to your personal ignorance on the topic you chose.
I don’t understand what this is in response to, it doesn’t seem related to the question at hand.
I’ll eat my literal hat if you can find an academic field that explicitly looks for consensus over facts or truth.
You still haven’t answered the question.
That evidence was collected by people, and can be falsified. If it had all been gathered by one group, that would be a problem. The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.
Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?
You’re trying to distract from avoiding the question at hand.
You’d accept as fact anything the Soviets and U$ agree on?
You’ll need to accept that “Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on the subject are caused by the lack of comprehension of the real nature she organization of the communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers was merely the captain of a team…”.
https://archive.ph/w3YpS
I’m looking forward to you admitting that you were wrong about Stalin. Or, will you just revise what you consider as good evidence to avoid it?
I don’t see any evidence or reason to think it is false. I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.
You still haven’t answered the question
So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.
This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.
This isn’t a response to what I said.
You very conveniently ignored the bit in that comment where your own argument forces you to admit that you’re wrong about Stalin.
I get that you’re having trouble with cognitive dissonance, but this isn’t a response to “I would need evidence”.
You still haven’t answered the question.
A possibility does not require evidence. It is a “could be”, a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.
If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It’s how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.
When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It’s just like someone saying “I need evidence for why the bible is false.”
You’ve unfortunately been banned from lemmygrad, so I won’t be able to see any of your replies.
“I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.” isn’t the statement of blind faith. Your stance on Stalin, ironically, is.
While you’re wistfully dealing with our separation, please think of two things:
Your own argument demands that you admit your stance on Stalin is wrong. You haven’t acknowledged that for several comments now.
You’ve been unable to respond to my initial question because you’ll have to drop your stance. Stalin cannot both be a power-seizing maniac, and someone who begs the Politboro to let him resign. We know the one is true. Can you accept your ideas are false?
We do not “know” one is true. This is exactly what blind faith is.
I can admit when I do not know something, I have admitted that I do not (and cannot) know the truth of if Stalin attempted to resign or not. He may have, he may not have. I do not know, but it sounds suspicious. I am not the one with the problem admitting ignorance though. I simply do not share your faith in the source.