Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[GlyphGryph]

It's fun that 'willing to concede' is shown as a virtue here. Okay...

Being willing to concede is always a virtue on a discussion board. It is what marks the difference between a reasonable person and an idiot, zealot, or insane person.

If you are not willing to concede, then you aren't participating in a conversation. This doesn't mean you always should concede (the opposition must make a valid argument supported by evidence, first), but you should certainly be willing to do so if that event comes to past.

[Owlbread]

Uh-oh. You are typical who can't draw a line between racism and prejudice.

The fact that you're even trying to argue that you're "just prejudiced, not racist" boggles my mind. Would you prefer "bigoted", perhaps? Does that sound better?

It's not black and white world, dear friend, it's just you need time to understand that (but you never will).

I don't really see how telling someone that is going to do anything constructive. It just seems like a controlling thing to say - "I understand the world, you never will, silly Westerners". What's the point?

I know, racism guilt is so western, but don't be so predictable. I saw your move miles ahead. I grew up in USSR where racism was sort of a treason, so your complexes is not aplliable to me.

My head actually hurts trying to fathom the logic in this. I understand that we have something of a language barrier but I think you need to explain your understanding of "racism". The fact that you grew up in a state that professed to be against racism does not prevent you from having racist/bigoted attitudes.

You all dogpiled on me today even if I was pretty benign to my standards. You all so predictable, poor lads...

If anybody "dogpiled" on you today it's because you came in with a needlessly combative attitude in order to call us all mindless Liberal idiots (living caricatures, no less) who weren't hard enough on Ukrainian Ranger, despite the fact that we'd already just pulled him up about the army stuff. What did you think would happen? That "poor, predictable lads, I saw this coming" stuff is really patronizing though and just leads to completely unnecessary flame wars.

[Knit tie]

To be fair, gogis has brought up some very good points:
- Putin is a former KGB agent who feels threatened by NATO and thus wants to stick it to them.
- Russian people, in the majority, are against further invasions into Ukraine, seeing how they just want to protect ethnic Russians there and most of the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine are already in Russian-controlled territories.
- Strategic USSR heritage infrastructure is another thing Putin may want in Ukraine.

As for the NATO and Russia accusing each other of various Bad Shit, I believe that they are both right. Both sides have been known to be realpoliticky as hell and have a solid history of various crimes behind them. Note that this and the fact that Chechnya was worse still doesn't give Putin any right to do what he does.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The world made a mistake long before Chechnya. In 1991

Cold War should have been ended with total capitulation of Soviet ideology. Total desovietzation in Russia itself. Nuremberg v2.0 against the red murderers.  How could Grozny 1994 not happen if Soviet "strategists" like Zhukov and Stalin remained heroes in Russia?  How could genocide of Chechens not happen if crimes of  Soviet genocides never were admitted?

NATO, happy with Soviet Union dissolving weakening* itself decided to end the cold war prematurely. The West started to cooperate with the wounded and humiliated enemy that never stopped to hate them. It is exactly like if in late 1944 Hitler would be allowed to remain in power in a part of a Germany in exchange for some liberalization of his policy

*let's admit that only Baltic states and later Georgia became truly independent from Moscow. USSR was there, just more decentralized than before 1991. Now Ukraine is trying to get out.

[Knit tie]

All the wars in human history could've been prevented if we would kill all politicians after 2 years of office. [/joke]

[misko27]

All the wars in human history could've been prevented if we would kill all politicians after 2 years of office. [/joke]

Except the war by politicians not to be killed. But I believe Bay12 did that joke already.

[mainiac]

It is exactly like if in late 1944 Hitler would be allowed to remain in power in a part of a Germany in exchange for some liberalization of his policy

Is there some competition going on here I'm unaware of?

[Sergarr]

Ad-Hitlerum. Again. WTF, people, WTF.

[da_nang]

Ad-Hitlerum. Again. WTF, people, WTF.

It is exactly like if in year A, bad person B would be allowed to remain in power in a part of a country C in exchange for some liberalization of his policy

Better? It has a point in that a bad person is still in power with no assurances for the "liberalized" part of his policy remaining "liberalized".

Seems everyone is calling "reductio ad Hitlerum" whenever someone evens mentions Hitler or the Nazi regardless of context.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

Now show me Ad Hitlerum in my last post. I dare you, Sergarr

When you use some term learn what it means first

[Sean Mirrsen]

I thought he was just referring to Godwin's Law. First time I ever hear of any "ad Hitlerum".

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Except in this case the comparison to Hitler is inappropriate, as it is used with derogatory intent. You're not comparing totalitarian regimes factually, you're specifically exaggerating the similarity from your personal point of view, to force a likeness between Putin and Hitler. Granted, the comparison you provided works better than these usually tend to - but your point of view is sufficiently biased for it to be seen as inappropriate, thus falling under the Godwin's Law.

In other words, just because you play the Hitler card because you actually believe the comparison to be true, rather than because you have no better argument, does not prevent it from still being inappropriate if it mostly happens to be your personal opinion.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Now, please,  show comparison of Hitler and Putin in my post. My post is about that cold war was ended in a wrong way, not with total capitulation of Soviet System as it should have been

(I do think that Putin is a maniac who don't gives a shit about human lives for his own crazy ideas but it wasn't present in my post.

Unlike most posters of the thread I don't think that the only thing Putin cares about is maintaining his power and luxurious life. He wants to be GREAT and stay in history.)

[da_nang]

Except in this case the comparison to Hitler is inappropriate, as it is used with derogatory intent. You're not comparing totalitarian regimes factually, you're specifically exaggerating the similarity from your personal point of view, to force a likeness between Putin and Hitler. Granted, the comparison you provided works better than these usually tend to - but your point of view is sufficiently biased for it to be seen as inappropriate, thus falling under the Godwin's Law.

In other words, just because you play the Hitler card because you actually believe the comparison to be true, rather than because you have no better argument, does not prevent it from still being inappropriate if it mostly happens to be your personal opinion.

A piece of advice: Whenever you suspect reductio ad Hitlerum, replace all the Hitler- or Nazi-related terms with abstract ones and see if it makes sense. Just because someone uses examples with stronger negative (or "inappropriate") connotations doesn't mean the argument is wrong or lacks a point.