lemm.ee

1 point

1 year ago

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”.

report

TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

Then explain in which way is Russia right in attacking ukraine then. You calling me wrong without any reason why.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

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.

report

TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

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

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Only thing you have done is to say I’m not adressing any position presented, which is a lie.

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.

report

TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

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.

report