If you’ve been following this Ukraine-Russia event, maybe you’ve taken some time to view some of the hearings at the UN, and maybe you’ve noticed the US representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield say things like: “We’re not going to give any more airtime to the lies that you’re hearing today.” Maybe this sounds familiar to US domestic political strategies when Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were saying debating Trump was “beneath their dignity,” or they said “We don’t want to legitimize this conversation,” or they said “Republican ideas of legitimate political discourse are grotesque.”

If you’re familiar with logical fallacies, and lists of logical fallacies – what is this even called? Well, the title of this article is “Reductio ad Dignitas Meae.” This is like an “Appeal to Disgust.” This is very similar to the fallacy formula of “Reductio ad Absurdum” or “Appeal to Absurdity.” It works the same way in that one is reducing one’s position to a single proposition that is supposed to appeal to the audience in some way.

Perhaps you’ve heard of “Reductio ad Hitlerum.” This is an example of reductio ad absurdum in which “Hitler” replaces “absurd.” This is not to say that these fallacies don’t work. Many times, they do. For example, debating the Flat-Earth theory is frequently dismissed with reductio ad absurdum. Not to get off-topic here, but the Flat-Earth theory is somewhat “useful” to realists simply because what it illustrates is Spherical-Earth theory (? I guess that’s what it’s called by default now?) is technically a theory and in fact EVERYTHING around us is technically a theory and what we call “Laws” (or “settled science”) like the “Law of Gravity” is, technically, still a theory. Perhaps maybe these theories should be called “Super-theories.” What I’m trying to say is that theories we call laws or things we understand to be common sense – the reason these things are the way they are is because continual, overwhelming amounts of testing continues to prove the theory solvent. So, I suppose with these super-theories, the human thing to do is to etch them into stone as unbreakable laws. And thus therefore debating what appears to be a “Law” is absurd, not to mention it is a very long way to go to reinvent the wheel. In terms of actually disproving the Flat Earth theory for yourself with your own eyes, you probably would need to enroll into an Astronomy 101 class (or climb on board a spaceship) and most people aren’t willing to put in that kind of effort. We take the Spherical-Earth theory for granted probably in a similar way we take our smartphones for granted.

Lol, obviously this website is very aware of Reductio ad Dignitas Meae. Many people believe it is beneath their dignity to debate whether or not “Bigfoot is real” or “Jesus is not real.” Pardon our French here, but this website obviously exists as a kind of a giant “fuck you” to anybody that has been constantly assuming “Bigfoot is not real” and “Jesus is/was real.” Clearly, we feel we have all the evidence we need to not only go against the grain, but to also actually move forward. Lololololol, because, it’s “settled science.” If you disagree then it’s because you haven’t looked at the science. Looooooool, I digress.

Back to the USA’s position on the Ukraine-Russia events, my theory is that reductio ad dignitas meae is not going to work on the global stage the same way it works in domestic political theater. What it will be viewed as are two things: 1) The US has no argument. 2) The US is about to be globally exposed for its heinous crimes against humanity.

So. The US says it’s not going to buy oil from Russia. Instead, it wants to buy from Venezuela or Iran. Well, Venezuela says they are a Russian ally. Iran just sent a missile toward a US embassy in Iraq.

It is very unfortunate that there are not any adults in the room in Washington DC. Ok, maybe you can find two, but they are powerless and nobody listens to them. This is bringing into question another “Law” US Citizens believe in: “Democracy works and democracy is superior to other forms of government.” Is that so?

Did you know that the American 1st Amendment that guarantees “freedom of speech” enables American mainstream media to knowingly lie and bear-false-witness to the public? (Except in the case of personal defamation.) I recently posited a theory that it ought to be unlawful for American mainstream media outlets to “bear false witness.” By bearing false witness what I mean is: knowingly lie and fabricate fictional articles and items to support the lie. If you read Vladimir Putin’s speech (translated to English on this website), you know that Putin has called America an “Empire of Lies.” And what I talked about at the beginning of this article is this script-flipping tactic of: “always-accuse-your-enemy-of-what-you’re-doing-to-them” that Linda Thomas-Greenfield is engaging in – is basically a schoolyard he-said-she-said lie stating that Russians are the real liars. My theory is that America got all the way to the UN with Linda Thomas-Greenfield in 2022 by allowing its media to lie and bear false witness, for a very very long time now, without any deterrents or punishments. Is there any public interest in changing that? Or will it be met with reductio ad dignitas meae? Two arguments I have heard against this is that it will “clog up the court system” and (not kidding about this one) “we don’t want a government responsible for discerning truth from lies.” Well, the USA doesn’t need to be officially interested in the truth, but other countries certainly are. And of course the United States participates in the United Nations. Time will tell how well lying and bearing false witness works on the international stage. Bear in mind, about 70% of Americans are some type of “Christian.” Time will also tell how useful American types of Christianity are, but I suspect most could be rendered pretty useless depending on America’s commitment to breaking one of the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments (thou shalt not bear false witness) under the umbrella virtue of “Freedom of Speech.”