Moderation Questions

That's not what he said.. A reading is simply dont trust the usa, you've seen how horrific it can get so it can be a serious threat to us. If that's what he means then I agree. Anyone who trusts the usa is nuts imo.

Maybe he means a genocide against russians - you can ask him.

I see no other way to tie these two sentences together. He did not think that Russia would invade, but after seeing what Israel has done it makes a lot more sense. Seems pretty to clear to me that this is saying that if Russia didn't invade then Ukraine could become another Israel and Russia would be...

Indeed i have the open wound that thinks we should have stopped putin invading ukraine and having failed that we should back ukraine to win. Soemhow I think that would be much better than blaming putin for invading and then not giving up in the face of all that finger pointing/

Im a sicko

It's too far from just not trusting the western outpost - here's an example of the worst that can happen in the world to illustrate why that can't be trusted. The situation is very different. Russia has nukes for one.

Even if it includes the extreme possibility (generally very unwise to decide things are impsossible), the meat is that the usa (west) cannot be trusted so that's the point that needs addressing if there's to be meanaingful discussion.

We've seen this argument many times before, here was one of my responses:

Lets look at some other similar arguments and how they were addressed:

This is just a different flavor of the exact same argument. If anything the entire argument is bad faith because it ignores the numerous well thought out refutations to the argument and then restates it with nothing new to add. At this stage if you are still repeating this argument then you're either too poorly educated to participate or you're just making noise to try to justify Russia's imperialist invasion/ somehow blame anyone other Russia for their invading.

The entire argument itself is bad faith at this point. It's even more bad faith because he's trying to make an emotional appeal by drawing a parallel between Ukraine and Israel's methods which results in lots of civilian deaths somehow. There are actual civilian deaths occurring in Ukraine at this moment; and we're discussing whether those civilian deaths were to prevent hypothetical Russian civilian deaths? Come on.

Rafiki using dates and facts is in no way bad faith.

As far this goes:

The equivalent would be that an asteroid is heading towards Earth and people are debating how best to help Earth survive but a loud person keeps interrupting by yelling that the Earth is flat so the asteroid will miss. All of the arguments about the Earth not being flat have been given, but they continue to yell it. Eventually things need to move past that person. That is where the mods are supposed to come in.

I'm not saying we're going to solve the world's problems here, but I would like a place to discuss them with intelligent people and instead I have this nonsense because Victor needs a place to be Victor.

I am talking purely about the argument that was put forth on this page. You're moving on to an entirely different one.

Here's a great way of putting this actually:

chez,

The only person who is conflating politics and the assignment of blame is you. I never suggested that assigning blame provides a dispositive answer to questions like "what should we do" or "how did this situation arise"?

no you want a place to validate Western expansion and hypocrisy. I dont agree with your perspectives and that drives you absolutely mad.

Can't refute, ad hominem

That was entirely about the arguments put forth here.

there is literally no arguments that you would accept that are critical of a Western power. and if you had it your way then you would ban all ideas that you dont agree with.

Your open mind is towards victor. You’re trying way too hard to make his argument fit your priors because you like what he has to say about Israel.

No I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting that that.

I'm suggesting it's what is beign done. And that ts is not merely silly, it's a real politcal problem.

Yeah next you're be calling us mates

I'm not seeing it. The person you seem to be assigning the argument to seems to disagree that it is his argument.

Anyways though, what you are trying to ignore is an argument against what you are saying. The flawed and debunked NATO encroachment narrative was used as reasoning to not arm Ukraine.

Well this is demonstrably false. Just read either of the threads I participate in in this forum. Wait... you do. It's almost like you assign things to me based on your flawed notion of who I am instead of actually reading my arguments. As rafiki if I support the "Western genocidal outpost".

Both of your posts ITT are no content personal attacks. They should be reported but I know it will result in nothing being done.

Anyways I'm out again. natediggity, sorry you have to put with this. I have no idea what he's posting in that thread but I can figure out the result. It's a shame this is protected.

I dont think we agree at all on Israel lol

I mean you come into this thread and talk a bunch of **** about me and then at the mildest pushback you want to whine to the mods. dont fling it if you dont like the blowback.

That's not what i'm seeing but I've never committed to an interpretation.

? There was no good reason not to arm Ukraine. We need to do better.

edit: that probably wasn't clear but the truth of nato encroachment narrative was neccesarily irrelevant. Possibly another example of a focus on attacking people for being wrong rather than addressing what needs to be done.

The only comment I can recall is you saying my post was shameful. There have probably been a few other but not many

it really isn't.

The argument reminds me of the blackadder sketch about why WW1 couldn't happen. You've ignored the possibility that archie duke might get hungary and eat an osterich.

No it doesn't. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia, it's entirely the other way round. And unlike Israel, Ukraine is not a nuclear power, in fact it gave up its nuclear weapons -- which is the answer to Bertrand Russell and unilateral disarmers generally: Ukraine tried it and look how that worked out. And the genocidal factor is entirely the other way round as well. It's Kremlin eunuchs who have argued for the eradication of Ukrainians, their culture and their language. Ukrainians have not said that kind of mad thing about Russians. As for not supporting the invasion, you've done nothing but support it, in rationale, in method and in ideology.

This is what happens when you have someone who is terrible at understanding things trying to interpret someone who is terrible at communicating things. Yes, he did mean Ukraine, go back and read what he wrote again.

Indeed but thanks for posting anyway

Russia invaded Ukraine because because they did not want to be near a genocidal western outpost like Israel.
Ukraine = ?

Take your time, it's a poser. Might even get you moved up the list.