Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 30% off your subscription by visiting https://ground.news/secondthoug...
A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.
Your arguments are not addressing any position that was actually presented to you.
Even someone who agreed with each point you made, and also agreed that you succeeded in rejecting some position actually presented, would not be justified in also agreeing with your rejection of all nuance.
You are simply not suited to discuss geopolitics if you believe that questions are soluble by simple statements about what is “100% right” versus “100% wrong”.
Again, you are not addressing any position actually presented.
It is beginning to seem as though your pattern is that when someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours, you impose your own invented view of the other’s position.
When you understand why such a pattern is counterproductive, then you will be beginning to deepen your engagement in nuance.
You have said the conflict is nuanced, not black and white, not good or bad. I have given numerous reasons why its bad and argued that its only bad.
I am still waiting for the good. If there isn’t, the conflict is not nuanced.
You are dishonest in your argument as you have failed to provide even a single shred of evidence in its favor. You are disrepsectful to those who suffered greatly under fascist ruzzia by implying there is even a bit of nuance to the conflict. There isn’t.
You have said the conflict is nuanced, not black and white, not good or bad. I have given numerous reasons why its bad and argued that its only bad.
You’re extremely confused.
My position is not that whether the invasion is good or bad is ambiguous.
My position is that from the objections against the invasion itself, your broader condemnations of particular individuals and their views are not following as robustly and unambiguously as you are expressing them.
For example, it should be plain to notice that one might object both to the invasion by Russia and to the support by other countries, yet your ossified and narrow narrative allows the existence only of positions that are in agreement or disagreement with your own “100%”.
You condemn, attack, and insult everyone simply for not affirming the one particular set of ideas that you hold firmly.
How else is Ukraine supposed to defend itself, other than the support from other countries? If a bully twice the size of the victim attack them, do you watch as the bully beats the victim to a pulp or do you intervene or call the police?
People who both condemn the ruzzias invasion (jt never actually condemned ruzzia, only the west for “causing the war”, straight out of kremlin propaganda) and the support of other countries have no idea what they even talk about, as their position makes no sense.
Painting support from other countries as negative is a support to ruzzia, as they themselves have showed.
I condemn, attack and insult those who support a fascist regime, JT being one of them.
I hold my views firmly because millions of lives depend and have the same views as I do, that being that the invasion is not nuanced and is perpetrated by a brutal, dictatorial, fascist regime.
Your arguments are not addressing any position that was actually presented to you.
Even someone who agreed with each point you made, and also agreed that you succeeded in rejecting some position actually presented, would not be justified in also agreeing with your rejection of all nuance.
You are simply not suited to discuss geopolitics if you believe that questions are soluble by simple statements about what is “100% right” versus “100% wrong”.
Then explain in which way is Russia right in attacking ukraine then. You calling me wrong without any reason why.
Again, you are not addressing any position actually presented.
It is beginning to seem as though your pattern is that when someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours, you impose your own invented view of the other’s position.
When you understand why such a pattern is counterproductive, then you will be beginning to deepen your engagement in nuance.
Your position is that the conflict in ukraine is nuanced. I argue that it isn’t. I gave my arguments why it isn’t you failed to give yours.
Only thing you have done is to say I’m not adressing any position presented, which is a lie.
It is beginning to seem that you have no arguments and are here simply to waste my time
No. You have been profoundly dishonest and disrespectful throughout.
You asked me why I believe the invasion is good.
Please quote the text in which I expressed a view that the invasion is good.
You have said the conflict is nuanced, not black and white, not good or bad. I have given numerous reasons why its bad and argued that its only bad.
I am still waiting for the good. If there isn’t, the conflict is not nuanced.
You are dishonest in your argument as you have failed to provide even a single shred of evidence in its favor. You are disrepsectful to those who suffered greatly under fascist ruzzia by implying there is even a bit of nuance to the conflict. There isn’t.
You’re extremely confused.
My position is not that whether the invasion is good or bad is ambiguous.
My position is that from the objections against the invasion itself, your broader condemnations of particular individuals and their views are not following as robustly and unambiguously as you are expressing them.
For example, it should be plain to notice that one might object both to the invasion by Russia and to the support by other countries, yet your ossified and narrow narrative allows the existence only of positions that are in agreement or disagreement with your own “100%”.
You condemn, attack, and insult everyone simply for not affirming the one particular set of ideas that you hold firmly.
How else is Ukraine supposed to defend itself, other than the support from other countries? If a bully twice the size of the victim attack them, do you watch as the bully beats the victim to a pulp or do you intervene or call the police?
People who both condemn the ruzzias invasion (jt never actually condemned ruzzia, only the west for “causing the war”, straight out of kremlin propaganda) and the support of other countries have no idea what they even talk about, as their position makes no sense.
Painting support from other countries as negative is a support to ruzzia, as they themselves have showed.
I condemn, attack and insult those who support a fascist regime, JT being one of them.
I hold my views firmly because millions of lives depend and have the same views as I do, that being that the invasion is not nuanced and is perpetrated by a brutal, dictatorial, fascist regime.
You are ranting and deriding, and arguing against a straw man.
A view can have merit other than your own, and your own can have flaws more serious than you realize.
Lives being at stake ought to make you more willing, not less willing, to engage and to refiect thoughtfully.
Unfortunately, it has seemed you are not thoughtful.
Your attitude is brash, your framing is inflexible, and your judgments are binary.