Ah yes and Russia is of course a true paragon of virtue and a font of truth, and is the victim in the war that… they started by unofficially invading a neighboring country over a decade ago 🙄
I’d tell you, yet again, to check your own biases in terms of media consumption, but I also know you don’t give a shit and will probably just try to snap back with a nonsensical pithy aphorism.
Just because somebody you dislike says something, does not make it false. Engage with the argument instead of simply doing your thought terminating smears.
What argument is that exactly then, Dodik is just stating things he believes are true, he’s not providing any arguments whatsoever.
Just because anyone says anything doesn’t make it worth “debating”, especially if zero arguments were provided. There’s nothing to engage with. “Nuh-uh” is about as argumentative as Dodik is being here.
There are plenty of arguments provided. He is absolutely correct about political rivals being eliminated as we saw blatantly done with the election farce in Romania. He says that Europeans lie about human rights, this is demonstrably a fact with Europe supporting genocide in Gaza. Europe is also banning media from adversaries, removing online privacy, and even pushing to ban VPNs right now. He’s completely correct that the EU is now rewriting history of WW2 and the role USSR played in defeating fascism.
The only one doing nuh-uh arguments here is you bud.
I’m simply providing concrete examples which substantiate the general points he made. These examples clearly show that what he says is correct. I didn’t substitute any arguments, I provided concrete examples of you. So, now try engage with the arguments instead of doing artless trolling.
Dodik made statements. He didn’t back it up with anything. He provided no argumentation, nor any examples. So when you say “attack the argument, not the person”, the question is “which argument, Dodik did not provide any”.
If I were to baselessly claim “Yoghtos is secretly three porcupines in a people-suit”, there’s no reason to ‘debate’ that statement; you dismiss it out of hand because I don’t provide any reasoning or argumentation as to why this is supposed to be true.
You provided an argumentation for him, which could be debated. Dodik did not.
No, that’s exactly how it works. Dodik talks about the trends happening in Europe, and he didn’t provide examples for things that are well known. You don’t seem to understand what the word baseless means. If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
I didn’t provide any argument for him. I literally went through the article and provides concrete examples for his claims. You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
To people who agree with you, you won’t. But to someone who is colourblind, or blind even, you do need to provide actual evidence.
If someone says “the sky is purple”, and someone else says “that’s nonsense, that guy claims everything is purple” you can’t just go “no but counter his reasoning for why the sky is purple”, because no reasoning was provided.
I have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks. He didn’t say why he said what he said.
You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
An argument is a statement or set of statements that you use in order to try to convince people that your opinion about something is correct.
Feel free to cite the original article where Dodik provides a statement used to convince the reader/listener of why his opinion is correct. I’m not interested in continuing this until you do.
And I’d tell you, yet again, to check your own biases in terms of liberal media consumption and how theyve lied to you about Russia and the Ukraine/Amerikkka Proxy War, but I also know fascist nazis don’t give a shit so giving you my nazi friend more than passing witty remarks is pointless
You really need to get it through your head that I take all media sources with a grain of salt, and corroborate data as much as possible. I’m fully aware that western sources have bias. But you’re essentially trying to claim that Russian sources are not biased - or at least, not as biased, which is comical, as well as trivially disprovable.
I’m not beating my chest and claiming the US or the EU or NATO or whatever you want to accuse me of being a shill for is a paragon of virtue. I’m saying that you’re pushing Russian state media organizations that known propaganda outlets of the Russian Federation. I would have precisely the same reaction if you were posting things from Stars and Stripes, or the Saudi Press Agency, or KCNA.
But sure, keep misrepresenting what I’m trying to point out about your biases.
Ah yes and Russia is of course a true paragon of virtue and a font of truth, and is the victim in the war that… they started by unofficially invading a neighboring country over a decade ago 🙄
I’d tell you, yet again, to check your own biases in terms of media consumption, but I also know you don’t give a shit and will probably just try to snap back with a nonsensical pithy aphorism.
Whataboutism
Just because somebody you dislike says something, does not make it false. Engage with the argument instead of simply doing your thought terminating smears.
What argument is that exactly then, Dodik is just stating things he believes are true, he’s not providing any arguments whatsoever.
Just because anyone says anything doesn’t make it worth “debating”, especially if zero arguments were provided. There’s nothing to engage with. “Nuh-uh” is about as argumentative as Dodik is being here.
There are plenty of arguments provided. He is absolutely correct about political rivals being eliminated as we saw blatantly done with the election farce in Romania. He says that Europeans lie about human rights, this is demonstrably a fact with Europe supporting genocide in Gaza. Europe is also banning media from adversaries, removing online privacy, and even pushing to ban VPNs right now. He’s completely correct that the EU is now rewriting history of WW2 and the role USSR played in defeating fascism.
The only one doing nuh-uh arguments here is you bud.
Did Dodik mention Romania? Did he mention the genocide in Gaza? Did he mention VPNs? Or rewriting history then?
Oh that’s right, he didn’t. Are you hallucinating a different article?
You asked to counter Dodik’s arguments, then substituted your own.
I’m simply providing concrete examples which substantiate the general points he made. These examples clearly show that what he says is correct. I didn’t substitute any arguments, I provided concrete examples of you. So, now try engage with the arguments instead of doing artless trolling.
That’s not how that works.
Dodik made statements. He didn’t back it up with anything. He provided no argumentation, nor any examples. So when you say “attack the argument, not the person”, the question is “which argument, Dodik did not provide any”.
If I were to baselessly claim “Yoghtos is secretly three porcupines in a people-suit”, there’s no reason to ‘debate’ that statement; you dismiss it out of hand because I don’t provide any reasoning or argumentation as to why this is supposed to be true.
You provided an argumentation for him, which could be debated. Dodik did not.
No, that’s exactly how it works. Dodik talks about the trends happening in Europe, and he didn’t provide examples for things that are well known. You don’t seem to understand what the word baseless means. If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
I didn’t provide any argument for him. I literally went through the article and provides concrete examples for his claims. You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
To people who agree with you, you won’t. But to someone who is colourblind, or blind even, you do need to provide actual evidence.
If someone says “the sky is purple”, and someone else says “that’s nonsense, that guy claims everything is purple” you can’t just go “no but counter his reasoning for why the sky is purple”, because no reasoning was provided.
I have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks. He didn’t say why he said what he said.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/argument
Feel free to cite the original article where Dodik provides a statement used to convince the reader/listener of why his opinion is correct. I’m not interested in continuing this until you do.
And I’d tell you, yet again, to check your own biases in terms of liberal media consumption and how theyve lied to you about Russia and the Ukraine/Amerikkka Proxy War, but I also know fascist nazis don’t give a shit so giving you my nazi friend more than passing witty remarks is pointless
You really need to get it through your head that I take all media sources with a grain of salt, and corroborate data as much as possible. I’m fully aware that western sources have bias. But you’re essentially trying to claim that Russian sources are not biased - or at least, not as biased, which is comical, as well as trivially disprovable.
I’m not beating my chest and claiming the US or the EU or NATO or whatever you want to accuse me of being a shill for is a paragon of virtue. I’m saying that you’re pushing Russian state media organizations that known propaganda outlets of the Russian Federation. I would have precisely the same reaction if you were posting things from Stars and Stripes, or the Saudi Press Agency, or KCNA.
But sure, keep misrepresenting what I’m trying to point out about your biases.