Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.

Yes, it is extremely reasonable.

If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones' head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.

Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying "we're going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont" and then that happening?

Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?

Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them

Begin article quote

The military council is a special body of People's Front. It develops proposals for strengthening of the defence system of Ukraine.

The council was created on 10 September 2014 together with the political and coordinating councils of the party. It was formed by the party congress which also approved the council's composition. It included the Chief of Staff of the party and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Turchynov, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, coordinator of the "Information Resistance" blog, Lt. Col. Dmytro Tymchuk, former acting Head of the Presidential Administration and co-founder of the revived National Guard Serhiy Pashynskiy and former secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Euromaidan commandant and organizer of the Maidan self-defense units Andriy Parubiy.

The council is made up of leading commanders of the territorial defense battalions: Andriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, Yuriy Bereza, commander of the Dnipro Battalion, Kostyantyn Mateichenko, commander of the Artemivsk battalion, Roman Pytski, commander of the Chernihiv battalion, Andriy Teteruk, commander of the Myrotvorets battalion, Yevhen Deydey, commander of the Kyiv-1 battalion, Mykola Shvalya, commander of the Zoloti Vorota battalion, Ihor Lapin, company commander of the Aidar Battalion Serhiy Sydoryn, vice-battalion commander of the National Guard and Mykhailo Havryluk, a soldier of the Kyivska Rus battalion.

End article quote

I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong

Begin article quote

The council is made up of leading commanders of the territorial defense battalions: Andriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, Yuriy Bereza, commander of the Dnipro Battalion, Kostyantyn Mateichenko, commander of the Artemivsk battalion, Roman Pytski, commander of the Chernihiv battalion, Andriy Teteruk, commander of the Myrotvorets battalion, Yevhen Deydey, commander of the Kyiv-1 battalion, Mykola Shvalya, commander of the Zoloti Vorota battalion, Ihor Lapin, company commander of the Aidar Battalion Serhiy Sydoryn, vice-battalion commander of the National Guard and Mykhailo Havryluk, a soldier of the Kyivska Rus battalion.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, it is extremely reasonable.

If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones’ head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.

It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.

Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying “we’re going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont” and then that happening?

Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.

Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them

I'm going to need more specifics than an information dump. Outside of the Azov being in the military council (which I admit was my mistake for not noticing, and I'll get to why that's not proof) and Andriy Parubiy (who I wouldn't consider a Nazi because he been a target of that kind of disinformation campaign by pro-russian media) nobody else catches my eye.

As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.

Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you're trying to claim.

I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.

Again, I would love an alternative explanation for what they said they wanted and were doing lining up with what happened.

As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.

Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It's much more than one nazi.

Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you’re trying to claim.

I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.

I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.

You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.

Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It’s much more than one nazi.

Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.

I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.

Okay, yes. And it is reasonable. Do you have any other explanation for what happened?

Edit: lol lmao, this is your explanation

Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.

That's just straight up counterfactual to what they actually say lmao

End edit

You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.

They're literally talking about who should be in and out of government and moving to make it happen.

I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.

You're literally the one being lazy.

I'm done, you're more than entitled to your willfully ignorant, arrogant bullshit.