• sweng@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are.

    I actually don’t. I need to provide some source. If you are unhappy with that source it’s up to you to show that it is a bad source, and why.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’ve already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It’s not about feels, it’s about you making an objectively false statement.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        17 days ago

        You literally haven’t explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.

          • sweng@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            17 days ago

            Yes, you keep repeating how you don’t accept secondary sources. What you don’t repeat (or even mention once) is why you distegard these sources.

            Bye.

              • sweng@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                17 days ago

                Yes, exactly. You repeated that you don’t accept secondary sources. We agree on that. You also keep repeating that you repeated that, which is also true. You are very good at repeating these things. What you still haven’t said even once is your argument for dismissing all these sources.

                Feel free to link to a primary source showing your argument, and not just “trust me bro, I said it already”. But also, you already said bye, so I’m not sure why you keep coming back? Is that also something you like repeating?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  No, what I repeated is that Russia never actually stated what these sources claim, and these claims come directly from western propagandists. I asked you to substantiate your claim based on what Russia has actually said officially, and you’ve refused to do that because we both know such statements don’t exist. The fact that you are simply incapable of admitting that you’re spreading misinformation is frankly pathetic beyond belief.

                  Feel free to link to a primary source showing your argument, and not just “trust me bro, I said it already”. But also, you already said bye, so I’m not sure why you keep coming back? Is that also something you like repeating?

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

                  • sweng@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    17 days ago
                    1. I have provided sources
                    2. You have stated you don’t accept those sources
                    3. You have not made an argument for why the sources are wrong.

                    Apparently I misunderstood you, and thought you said you had repeatedly told me why the sources are wrong. I asked for a link to where you made the argument, but now you countered with not being able to prove a negative, i.e. you are saying you never gave an argument. Apologies for misunderstanding.

                    This brings me back to asking you to provide an argument regarding the sources, since you are the one claiming they are unreliable.

                    Sorry again that I misunderstood you, and hopefully this brings us back on track. I’m also sorry I misunderstood that you were done with the discussion when you said “bye”. I can only assume you meant something else now.