Print

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

[Owlbread]

I would like to make a point clear before bowing out as we begin the finger pointing about who started what and when:

If we have to qualify every single direct criticism of Russia that we make (e.g. that it's waging a proxy war or human rights abuses or something like that) with something like "But of course Russia is not alone because America did such and such and such and such" I don't even know how we can actually hold a discussion. There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

The fact that America does something or Britain does something doesn't formally undermine our argument in any way. It might make us seem less credible, yes, it might even suggest a lack of commitment on our part to the kind of settlement we're trying to preach regarding Russia. Nevertheless - deal with our point, don't just deflect otherwise we're not actually arguing/debating, we're just playing a silly game where rather than actually dealing with a criticism the opponent tries to get out of it by calling the accuser a hypocrite. No "engagement" with the argument has been made.

[Sergarr]

Knit tie, why do you believe necessary to reaffirm your stance as divergent from my own, when your words alone are telling that?

It's not like there would be many people here who would conflate mine and yours opinions, since they have different logical structures - yours come from moralilty, mine comes from supremacy. So why do you feel required to reiterate time and time again your separatism to the point of view?

[a1s]

There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - therefore any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

Eh. Any argument  hat can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion. We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

[Owlbread]

Eh. Any argument  that can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion.

I don't think that argument exonerated anyone from war crimes. Nobody has been exonerated - and the fact that the argument was completely invalid shows it's not even a real argument, it's a trick.

Remember - if an argument is "valid" that doesn't mean it's important/a useful addition to the discussion - finding an argument that could exonerate Russia or the West from war crimes would be an important/useful addition to the discussion. "Valid" means it actually "works" like an argument. If it's invalid, it doesn't logically work.

We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

If we could sort that it would make Russia thread discussions a lot less tiresome.

[smjjames]

There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - therefore any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

Eh. Any argument  hat can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion. We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

Sure I can accept the "everyone is to blame" part (since both sides of the conflict are complex as heck, though Russia has the largest share of the blame, IMO), but do Sergarr and Knit Tie?

[Knit tie]

I would like to make a point clear before bowing out as we begin the finger pointing about who started what and when:

If we have to qualify every single direct criticism of Russia that we make (e.g. that it's waging a proxy war or human rights abuses or something like that) with something like "But of course Russia is not alone because America did such and such and such and such" I don't even know how we can actually hold a discussion. There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

The fact that America does something or Britain does something doesn't formally undermine our argument in any way. It might make us seem less credible, yes, it might even suggest a lack of commitment on our part to the kind of settlement we're trying to preach regarding Russia. Nevertheless - deal with our point, don't just deflect otherwise we're not actually arguing/debating, we're just playing a silly game.

I try my absoute best not to use whataboutism, but sometimes it slips through and I am sorry for that. For the most part, I am basing my arguments on what the USA did in this very conflict, not sometime ago somewhere.

Knit tie, why do you believe necessary to reaffirm your stance as divergent from my own, when your words alone are telling that?

It's not like there would be many people here who would conflate mine and yours opinions, since they have different logical structures - yours come from moralilty, mine comes from supremacy. So why do you feel required to reiterate time and time again your separatism to the point of view?

Because I am afraid that my opponents might erroneously think that one pro-Russian = another pro-Russian, based on the fact that we agree on some key points.

There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - therefore any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

And that has been my intention for the last several tens of pages. Unfortunately, I have to keep clarifying constantly that my pointing out the USA/Kiyv's flaws does not translate into exonerating Russia of the same flaws.

Eh. Any argument  that can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion.

I don't think that argument exonerated anyone from war crimes. Nobody has been exonerated - and the fact that the argument was completely invalid shows it's not even a real argument, it's a trick.

We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

If we could sort that it would make Russia thread discussions a lot less tiresome.

Yes, that would be amazing! How about we ask Fearful Jesuit to post it in the poll or something?

There's a reason why "tu quoque" is recognised as a logical fallacy - therefore any "argument" you make against a direct criticism of Russia by saying "but what about USA" is invalid.

Eh. Any argument  hat can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion. We can however leave the part where "everyone is to blame" unspoken, if we agree it is obvious to both sides.

Sure I can accept the "everyone is to blame" part (since both sides of the conflict are complex as heck), but do Sergarr and Knit Tie?

I - absolutely. Putin could've safely avoided the entire clustefuck by not caring about Ukraine being in NATO - Estonia is in NATO, so fricking what? And it's not like we need buffer states in the XXI century, anyway.

[a1s]

Eh. Any argument  that can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion.

I don't think that argument exonerated anyone from war crimes.

I have to track down the necessary documents (lazy now), but basically you can get much reduced sentencing if you can show you were convinced your war crimes were quid-pro-quo with what your enemies were doing. That's a "tu quixote" argument if I ever saw one.

[mainiac]

We are in a situation where "the west" and Russia are operating on completely different definitions of victory.  Russia has defined victory in terms of triumph of the will, as long as Russia refuses to cave, they have won.  The west has defined victory in terms of whether Ukraine is a democracy and whether a war happens.  It's a situation that means that negotiation wont happen because both sides can "win" without negotiating.

It's also a very convenient situation for Russian leadership.  If keeping Putin is victory and ditching Putin is defeat you'd be a fool to ditch Putin.

And that has been my intention for the last several tens of pages. Unfortunately, I have to keep clarifying constantly that my pointing out the USA/Kiyv's flaws does not translate into exonerating Russia of the same flaws.

You say that but when push comes to shove you exonerate Russia %110.

[Knit tie]

Eh. Any argument  that can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion.

I don't think that argument exonerated anyone from war crimes.

I have to track down the necessary documents (lazy now), but basically you can get much reduced sentencing if you can show you were convinced your war crimes were quid-pro-quo with what your enemies were doing. That's a "tu quixote" argument if I ever saw one.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[smjjames]

Eh. Any argument  that can exonerate your from war crimes is a valid one in an informal discussion.

I don't think that argument exonerated anyone from war crimes.

I have to track down the necessary documents (lazy now), but basically you can get much reduced sentencing if you can show you were convinced your war crimes were quid-pro-quo with what your enemies were doing. That's a "tu quixote" argument if I ever saw one.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Nice typo catch, lol.

[Knit tie]

Hell, I think I should state my opinion on the whole "blame" issue again, just to be sure: I consider Russia to blame for instigating the whole crisis by having an issue with Ukraine being in NATO, but I also consider the USA and Kiyv to blame for enthusiastically escalating the conflict and absolutely refusing to compromise, thus causing the current political standoff and positional war.

I think the statement above formed the core of my "why I support Russia" posts, but nobody noticed it behind all the supposed Russia exoneration.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I didn't know Ukraine was magically in NATO because Russia is invading them

[mainiac]

I think the statement above formed the core of my "why I support Russia" posts, but nobody noticed it behind all the supposed Russia exoneration.

So you say Russia is wrong but because of "escalation" you dont blame them for what they did.

I google exonerate and I find the definition: "(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case."

So you dont absolve Russia for blame you just for a wrongdoing.  You just... y'know...

[Knit tie]

I think the statement above formed the core of my "why I support Russia" posts, but nobody noticed it behind all the supposed Russia exoneration.

So you say Russia is wrong but because of "escalation" you dont blame them for what they did.

I do blame Russia for starting this whole clusterfuck out of pure Cold War paranoia.

[Sergarr]

I think the statement above formed the core of my "why I support Russia" posts, but nobody noticed it behind all the supposed Russia exoneration.

So you say Russia is wrong but because of "escalation" you dont blame them for what they did.

I do blame Russia for starting this whole clusterfuck out of pure Cold War paranoia.

At least they don't assault us with rainbow flags now...