yogthos

I think the example is trying to optimize for readability to show that it can be pretty intuitive, but I think you're right.

Yeah the fact that SA doesn't agree with the west politically totally justifies holding their delegation hostage. Thank you for your insightful comment.

this was the case according to Oxfam in 2017, I'm not aware of any dramatic wealth redistribution since https://www.oxfam.ca/news/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-as-half-the-world-says-new-oxfam-report/

you really need to go outside and get some fresh air bud

that's a whole lot of false equivalence

Indeed, this just highlights how absurd US empire is.

It's pretty clear that meaningful discussion is not possible here. I've explained my position to you repeatedly, and you just continue to regurgitate the same tropes you started with. Nobody is making any threats, I've simply explained to you where this all leads if neither side is willing to negotiate. You just keep using straw man arguments to misrepresent what I say. If you had even the most basic understanding of what the threat of a nuclear war means then you wouldn't be writing the drivel that you are. Enjoy having the last word since you clearly need to.

You continue to contradict yourself. You said I haven't given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things. Pick a lane. If you want me to magically distill decades of geopolitics for you into a single sentence that's not going to happen. If you want to understand the subject you're attempting to debate here then spend the time reading about it instead of arguing on the internet.

The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario. Then the west and Ukraine proceeded to ignore these agreements, and now neither the west nor Russia are willing to back down.

And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn't actually solve anything and it's not in any way productive. It's just a way to make yourself feel righteous.

What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can't come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that's a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.

I'll distill it down to this, nobody is justifying anything. Talking about justification is a moral argument, and I find it pointless. What I explained to you in detail are the reasons why the invasion happened. The way to avoid wars is to understand what the motivations of different countries are, what their red lines are, and how to come to compromises that everybody is willing to live with. That's what diplomacy is and this is what the west is incapable of doing. Evidently this is something you're having trouble comprehending.

To quote you, “Where?” Where did I say that?

You said "Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true", perhaps clarify which statement you're referring to then, because based on the thread that's the statement I made that you're disputing.

Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense.

Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It's a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.

The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.

Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.

You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I'm referencing you start going off about name dropping.

Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.

Please, present the facts.

I have, go back and read this thread where I've presented the facts already.

What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?

I've explained why it's false.

I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.

Nice straw man there.

Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.

I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you're unwilling to. Either way it's clear that further discussion is pointless.

Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.

One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn't some argument of ideas, it's a basic verifiable fact, and what you're doing here is just sophistry.

Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.

Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.

I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.

Nah, you're just generating bullshit here.

You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.

That's infantile reasoning. It's perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.

Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.

No you don't, you're regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.

Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.

This itself is a false statement.

However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.

It's actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.

I wish you were a better 'man.

I wish you'd follow your own advice.