3 ms·

You can critique the US, their history, their actions all you like none of that is of any relevance to the present conflict we are discussing. Its chaff you use

You can critique the US, their history, their actions all you like none of that is of any relevance to the present conflict we are discussing. Its chaff you use to hide the fact that your core argument is so bad. Nothing but mindless aggression and acquisitiveness has provoked this war. There is only one side that has unilaterally begun this conflict and there is only one party that can end it by going home. That is the only thing to talk about–when Russia is going home—and nothing whatsoever to say on it. Appeasement can't possibly work because a rational actor would then conclude that they can buy back their former empire with blood and negotiate their way out of the very temporary pain of sanctions. It would inevitably lead to war, death, and pain. For someone who proposes it seems to be a student of history, you are uniquely bad at following a simple line of logic or staying on track.

EGreg 4y ago
“I am not interested in a forest of time-wasting links to mainstream sources” “Nothing but what I say has provoked this war. Period.” “There is only one side that has unilaterally done everything bad. End of story.” “Only one party can end this. Stop talking about what we can do. This is completely up to Putin.” “If you disagree with me then you are spewing Putin propaganda. How much are they paying you?” “Russia is 100% at fault, and it must be 100% defeated to show the world that no one can arm rebels or invade countries or occupy them or bomb people” “Ok well we may have done that but that was a really long time ago.. and anyway we didn’t try to ANNEX those countries! Look, no one is perfect and we make slight mistakes. But two wrongs don’t make a right”. “Stop talking about what our country did. NATO had no role in this. Stop using historical facts. What you say has no relevance” “Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified and unprovoked! I mean.. unprovoked and unjustified. That’s what I independently personally think and you should agree — end of story!” “That is the only thing to talk about.” “And nothing whatsoever to say on it except what I said. Period.” “End of story.“ “Did I mention period?” I think it is clear this style of arguing is a bit different than most intellectually honest discourse on HN. Can’t quite put my finger on what the differences are … maybe someone can help me out here?

EGreg 4y ago

“I am not interested in a forest of time-wasting links to mainstream sources” “Nothing but what I say has provoked this war. Period.” “There is only one side that has unilaterally done everything bad. End of story.” “Only one party can end this. Stop talking about what we can do. This is completely up to Putin.” “If you disagree with me then you are spewing Putin propaganda. How much are they paying you?” “Russia is 100% at fault, and it must be 100% defeated to show the world that no one can arm rebels or invade countries or occupy them or bomb people” “Ok well we may have done that but that was a really long time ago.. and anyway we didn’t try to ANNEX those countries! Look, no one is perfect and we make slight mistakes. But two wrongs don’t make a right”. “Stop talking about what our country did. NATO had no role in this. Stop using historical facts. What you say has no relevance” “Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified and unprovoked! I mean.. unprovoked and unjustified. That’s what I independently personally think and you should agree — end of story!” “That is the only thing to talk about.” “And nothing whatsoever to say on it except what I said. Period.” “End of story.“ “Did I mention period?” I think it is clear this style of arguing is a bit different than most intellectually honest discourse on HN. Can’t quite put my finger on what the differences are … maybe someone can help me out here?