• Garibaldee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    12 hours ago

    By arguments and questions do you mean their meta commentary on what I was saying. Because there is nothing to respond to there. What should I respond to someone telling me I am using rhetorical techniques to obscure what I am actually saying. They should have responded directly to what I was saying.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I made sure to go through your arguments point by point, and the only part you responded to initially was my meta-commentary at the end, after I was done with all my arguments and questions directly responding to what you were saying.

      • Garibaldee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Dude… bravo, man, for making the effort, I guess. This is actually pretty impressive.

        snark

        All the blue is Ukraine’s lost territory they got back with the West’s help. There’s also Kursk.

        I was not implying it did not, but I don’t see compelling evidence they will get more of it back any time soon militarily Crimea or Donbass.

        Did Western countries promise them security? That’s the whole controversy about them joining NATO. For some reason, it is a globe-spanning crisis for Russia if NATO does offer them security, were they to be invaded, instead of just no-strings-attached weapons and a hearty pat on the back for good luck. Wonder why that’s a big issue.

        I feel like this phrasing is, maybe, an incredibly artful dodge, inserted into the middle of talking about the Budapest Memorandum to make it sound like any part whatsoever of the betrayal of that agreement came from any source other than Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe I’m reading too much in, though.

        Snark and they were promised security for giving up their nukes as you detail, that is not “the whole controversy about them joining NATO” multiple NATO members would almost definitely veto them joining even if most of the other countries were okay with it, and no country is debating kicking out the countries that would veto Ukraine, so it’s a non starter now.

        Probably true. They’re working on it. Doesn’t that kind of thing bother you? Wouldn’t it be better to give them conventional assistance to the extent they actually need, and allow them to counterattack without all this nail-biting about how it would be ever so rude and we don’t really care to that extent about dead Ukrainian soldiers and civilians? So they can win the fucking war and we can all go back to our lives?

        I was simply referring to the past, I’m not personally advocating that assistance should be halted. I think if the US is unwilling to do more than send weapons a peace deal should be priotized because I don’t think this “semi-stale-mate” is going to change and I think people dying is a bad thing that should stop. Especially when it isn’t accomplishing anything meaningful.

        I saved this one for last. I’m going to just sit and ponder at it, in silent contemplation.

        Like I say, it’s pretty impressive. You’ve combined true statements that are sort of in the neighborhood of what you’re trying to prove, unrelated assertions, and absolute bald-faced earnest fabrications, into a pretty passable imitation of something that makes sense.

        snark

        There you go. If you wanted a better response, maybe stop being so fucking snarky and smarmy.