US's Blinken says no to any Ukraine peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal
US's Blinken says no to any Ukraine peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms. Blinken said in Finland on Friday that heeding calls from Russia and others for negotiat...
“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
You're viewing part of a thread.
At least we agree that I didn't say what I didn't say.
I'm calling the US a warmonger because it's been a warmonger for it's brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it's interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
No amount of 'just war' will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history
now you're just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren't necessarily factual, you're just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing here-- and is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don't like the US, and you'll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.
Your argument is no based in facts, it's based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
Why are you insisting that I meant what I have said I did not mean? I understand that your interpretation of what I said is one valid interpretation. But I am confirming again that it is not the intended meaning of my words.
I called the US a warmonger. You replied:
and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself …
I confirmed:
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history.
You responded:
now you’re just changing your argument again moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
But I haven't changed what I said. There was a misunderstanding and I clarified what I meant. I'll do so again. My point—the same as it was in my first comment—is that the US is a warmonger. It is a warmonger because it is constantly starting and prosecuting wars. The goalposts are exactly where I left them.
I wrote:
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
To which you replied:
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual
This is a misunderstanding. The words 'even if' are conditional. They mean, in case I am wrong about US motivations in this war, the US is still a warmonger for all the other wars it has caused and prosecuted. So I can be wrong about this war and still right about the generalisation. This is the same point, to reiterate, that I have made from the beginning.
you have a grudge about what the US did in the past
The US and it's allies killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. In my lifetime. Why should I not be bitter and angry at such a crime? At the lack of justice? The people responsible are still free and there have been no apologies. What I have is an accurate description of the US: warmonger.
Yes, I will continue to say this. Until the day the US apologises and finds a way to make reparations. And not just for Iraq but for all the other places it has destroyed in it's lust for profit. Because until that day, I will refuse to believe that the US has changed it's ways. And if it has not changed it's ways, then it remains what it has always been: a warmonger.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges.
you don't have an argument, you just have a bunch of logical fallacies, disinformation, and childish indignation.
I honestly have no idea what you're on about, except that you forgot the one about making mountains out of molehills.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
This is the most appropriate thing you've said all day.
Do liberals feel some kind of indescribable euphoria from taking what they believe to be the moral high ground? They're always on their high horse, must be a side-effect of the brain rot.
🤷
It's such an important topic but a conversation can't go anywhere if the two speakers are talking about different things and can't agree on what the topic is.
Classic liberal - "history doesn't matter, the only things that matter are within the contextual boundaries I draw that support my assertions. No, you're the fallacy!"
Pure brain rot
if you have to lie about what I said to make a point, then you don't have much of a point to make.
and if your entire premise is just a straw man fallacy, your premise isn't much of a premise at all.
finally, if all you have left is childish insults, well... that speaks for itself.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong"