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.