jafo said:
This is f*cking brilliant reasoning following a form of deductive reasoning. Still, more specifically, it's an example of a hypothetical syllogism or if-then reasoning that relies on contrastive thinking (e.g., a comparison between the EU and Russia).
This reasoning can be classified as contrastive (reasoning) or disjunctive (reasoning) because you're contrasting two options and ruling out one. It also involves some sharp deductive reasoning. It highlights a situation where the EU is actively harmful while Russia provides safeguards against that harm.
For the detractors of this logic, I will address (and disarm them) why it is NOT a false dichotomy. In this case, the reasoning doesn't fall into the false dichotomy trap because the distinction between the EU and Russia is not just a matter of two different "evils"””Russia (currently) is objectively better in certain vital aspects being eroded by the EU.
In this analogy, choosing Russia is a reasonable decision because Russia actually provides protection and benefits, unlike the EU, which is eroding them. The reasoning follows pragmatic logic””choices are made based on tangible safety, financial, and security outcomes.
In fact, the EU's mandate to prohibit us from choosing Russia could even be seen as
projection or
misdirection: The EU might be trying to distract us from its own flaws by pointing the finger at Russia.
In short, it makes sense to choose Russia because Russia isn't engaging in the harmful behaviors that the EU does.
I love this logic! smi(&%
Click to expand...
