Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[mrttao]

What is this cucked leftist shit?
Do you ISIL islamist propagandists to be free to operate in western countries too?
If you support a country that is in process of invading yours, well, only most cucked countries in existence would consider protecting that as free speech, it's war, not some bullshit.
Here's what the founder era USA did with people like that:

>> Banning speech is shining example of democracy
> No. it is literally the opposite of democracy, which is founded on free speech.
>> Cuck!

So... what exactly are you trying to argue here?
Are you supporting the claim that speech crimes are a shining example of democracy?
Are you refuting the claim that free speech is the foundation of democracy?
Or are you just randomly attacking?

 

[Marduk]

>> Banning speech is shining example of democracy
> No. it is literally the opposite of democracy, which is founded on free speech.
>> Cuck!

So... what exactly are you trying to argue here?
Are you supporting the claim that speech crimes are a shining example of democracy?
Are you refuting the claim that free speech is the foundation of democracy?
Or are you just randomly attacking?

Apparently the founders of your democracy when they had a war for some reason didn't think freedom of seditious speech is that important for democracy, so take it up with them. Other democracies in history also generally weren't fans of it either.

Oswald Mosley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

William Joyce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[King Arts]

I don't care about spacebattle bullshit rules.
You made bullshit bad faith arguments, specifically a whataboutism. which is universally acknowledged as bad faith argument method.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whataboutism - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery especially in the UK) is a deflection or red herring version of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy — sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well — which is employed as a propaganda technique. It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the...

rationalwiki.org

What about 'whataboutism'?

If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?

www.merriam-webster.com

Literally everyone on every side of politicks calls whataboutism a bullshit argument. Although they always complain about when the other guy is doing it.

As for me setting up a bad faith strawman... the fuck are you even smoking

Let me just jump in no whataboutism is not a logical fallacy it’s valid anyone who disagrees is a mouth breather.

 

[ShieldWife]

Apparently the founders of your democracy when they had a war for some reason didn't think freedom of seditious speech is that important for democracy, so take it up with them. Other democracies in history also generally weren't fans of it either.

Oswald Mosley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

William Joyce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What Britain did to those guys was scummy.

 

[mrttao]

Let me just jump in no whataboutism is not a logical fallacy it’s valid anyone who disagrees is a mouth breather.

People who use whataboutism (the true kind not the genuine hypocrisy kind) are mouth breathing retards.

The most common form of Whataboutism is a form of strawman where you change the subject to imply the other side is a bad person, because he spoke on X, therefore he must support unrelated worse thing Y

Ex:
>> I think it is wrong to rape adults
> What about child rape? How dare you complain about adult rape when children are raped too! This means you support child rape!
>> I didn't say that. I am against both
> If you were really against both you would have started out with child rape. the fact you started with adult rape means you don't care about child rape.

It is one of the dumbest form of argumentation you can make. Purely bad faith.

Although some people falsely scream whataboutism when there is an example of hypocrisy
>> I think it is wrong to murder people for their skin color
> Here is a quote of you saying on date X that "all white people should be killed"
>> Whataboutism!

This is not whataboutism but hypocrisy, falsely labeled as whataboutism.

Here in this thread ya'll are using the strawman type of authentic whataboutism. Where you just make up random bullshit that is worse than what someone complained about. And then go "if you really cared about both you would have started from the 2nd thing"

 

[mrttao]

Apparently the founders of your democracy when they had a war for some reason didn't think freedom of seditious speech is that important for democracy, so take it up with them. Other democracies in history also generally weren't fans of it either.

Answer the questions.

Are you supporting the claim that speech crimes are a shining example of democracy?
Are you refuting the claim that free speech is the foundation of democracy?
Or are you just randomly attacking?

 

[Marduk]

Answer the questions.

Are you supporting the claim that speech crimes are a shining example of democracy?
Are you refuting the claim that free speech is the foundation of democracy?
Or are you just randomly attacking?

Some types of speech crimes absolutely are. USA has them too (slander and libel for example). Stop playing smartass about things you don't know shit about.
Propagandising for an ongoing foreign invasion is a rather niche and not well argued for kind of speech that by nature falls under war, rather than peacetime rules, which are generally harsher for obvious reasons.

 

[Agent23]

Because we have a right to free speech and she should have been tried for treason.
Fun fact, the Ukrainians can treat him as a spy if they truly wanted too

Freedom of Speech: Between Power and Truth in Ukraine

 

[Husky_Khan]

snip

Oh your still responding to me. I'm sorry, you must've forgotten to quote me. You probably just missed my responses since they were on the last page. No worries. I can repost.

1. facepalm. try again


2. I brought up putin to explicitly say he is worse than ukraine on that issue.
Total reading fail

Incorrect. I quoted this post in regards to Whataboutism and stating that King Arts and Bacle were stating that Russia is worse then Ukraine and bringing up Whataboutism was retarded in my response.

You responded that you were comparing the USA to Ukraine.

I stated you never mentioned USA.

Now you respond that you brought up that Russia is worse then Ukraine on this issue which was already established by the two individuals you were responding to. So why are you bringing up Whataboutism then?

I believe that not only are you engaging in Whataboutism, and false dilemmas... but also moving the goalposts. Sad.

So what prey tell is he saying here.

Please, I am waiting to see how you spin it as him not accusing me of tacitly approving of mass rape. because I had the gall to reply to the claims of "shining beacon of democracy" instead of posting "yep, ukraine is shining beacon of democracy because muh russian mass rapes"

> Doubling down this hard
I cannot facepalm enough.

You have reading comprehension deficiency.
I'm making an absurd example because I was wondering how absurd you were.
The fact it's so absurd that your still offended by it is hilarious.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

 

[Marduk]

‘Just a matter of time’: Was Bill Clinton aware of Putin’s plan to invade Ukraine?

Russian president Vladimir Putin told Bill Clinton three years prior to his 2014 attack on Ukraine that he was not obligated by the Budapest Memorandum's guarantee of the nation's territorial integrity, according to the former US President. The disclosure raises concerns about whether the US and...

www.wionews.com

"Putin told me in 2011, three years before he took Crimea, that he did not agree with the agreement I made with Boris Yeltsin, that they would respect Ukraine's territory if they gave up their nuclear weapons," Clinton said on Thursday at a public discussion at 92nd Street Y, a Jewish cultural and community centre in New York, as reported by the Guardian.
"Putin said to me: '… I know Boris agreed to go along with you and John Major and Nato, but he never got it through the Duma [Russian parliament]. We have our extreme nationalists too. I don't agree with it and I do not support it and I'm not bound by it," he added.

 

[DarthOne]

‘Just a matter of time’: Was Bill Clinton aware of Putin’s plan to invade Ukraine?

Russian president Vladimir Putin told Bill Clinton three years prior to his 2014 attack on Ukraine that he was not obligated by the Budapest Memorandum's guarantee of the nation's territorial integrity, according to the former US President. The disclosure raises concerns about whether the US and...

www.wionews.com

I trust anything that comes out of a Clinton’s mouth about as much as I do out of Putin’s. Especially after the fact.

 

[Megadeath]

I trust anything that comes out of a Clinton’s mouth about as much as I do out of Putin’s. Especially after the fact.

I mean... All he's saying is Putin had told him he didn't feel bound by past guarantees of Ukrainian protection. Present events make it abundantly clear that he doesn't. Maybe he's making up that Putin told him but that seems entirely pointless, just as much as doubting this does.

 

[Agent23]

‘Just a matter of time’: Was Bill Clinton aware of Putin’s plan to invade Ukraine?

Russian president Vladimir Putin told Bill Clinton three years prior to his 2014 attack on Ukraine that he was not obligated by the Budapest Memorandum's guarantee of the nation's territorial integrity, according to the former US President. The disclosure raises concerns about whether the US and...

www.wionews.com

Same Clinton whose wife has constantly been reeing about Russiagate and who thinks Muh Russians stole the U.S. presidency from her?
The one that 'did not have sex with that woman'?

 

[Megadeath]

Same Clinton whose wife has constantly been reeing about Russiagate and who thinks Muh Russians stole the U.S. presidency from her?
The one that 'did not have sex with that woman'?

Seriously, what is the point of attacking his credibility? Do you really hope to convince people that in fact Russia does intend to guarantee the security of Ukraine as they previously promised? Coz you're going to face a bigger hurdle than making people doubt Clinton.

 

[ATP]

Same Clinton whose wife has constantly been reeing about Russiagate and who thinks Muh Russians stole the U.S. presidency from her?
The one that 'did not have sex with that woman'?

Logical.

Seriously, what is the point of attacking his credibility? Do you really hope to convince people that in fact Russia does intend to guarantee the security of Ukraine as they previously promised? Coz you're going to face a bigger hurdle than making people doubt Clinton.

Also logical.

 

[Blasterbot]

Seriously, what is the point of attacking his credibility? Do you really hope to convince people that in fact Russia does intend to guarantee the security of Ukraine as they previously promised? Coz you're going to face a bigger hurdle than making people doubt Clinton.

the guy lied to the entire american public on stand. he commited perjury. you don't get trusted after that.

 

[Megadeath]

the guy lied to the entire american public on stand. he commited perjury. you don't get trusted after that.

Uh huh... But, do you think Russia intends to honour the Budapest memorandum? Coz to me it seems like they've pretty thoroughly torn that to shreds and burnt the scraps. Trusting Clinton doesn't really enter into it. The initial article is a massive nothingburger, doubting it is even more pointless.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

do you think Russia intends to honor the Budapest memorandum?

here's the problem, Putin (and thus anyone who maters in Russia) honestly and truly believes that the US broke the deal first. you can argue that he's wrong until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that Putin does not see himself/ Russia as the aggressors.

 

[Megadeath]

here's the problem, Putin (and thus anyone who maters in Russia) honestly and truly believes that the US broke the deal first. you can argue that he's wrong until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that Putin does not see himself/ Russia as the aggressors.

Or, at least that's the official party line. Wether they truly believe it is neither certain nor important. But, that's also irrelevant to what I was saying, which is that doubting Clinton saying Putin doesn't intend to honour the memorandum is... Well, stupid. Since objective reality has made it abundantly clear that, for whatever reason, he didn't intend to honour it.

 

[Marduk]

here's the problem, Putin (and thus anyone who maters in Russia) honestly and truly believes that the US broke the deal first. you can argue that he's wrong until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that Putin does not see himself/ Russia as the aggressors.

Outside of the unlikely scenario in which you have CIA, MI6 and Mossad agents constantly chasing you with briefcases of dollars to buy your mind reading tech, you absolutely don't know if he truly believes that.
Russian leadership would publicly pretend to be convinced that the moon is in the shape of a pretzel if they believed it could give them a meaningful benefit.