4 ms·

Your debate tactic reminds me of some variation of the gish gallop. I thought there was a word for it, but I can't find it. You just ask question after questio

Your debate tactic reminds me of some variation of the gish gallop. I thought there was a word for it, but I can't find it. You just ask question after question after question after question, with an extremely disproportionate amount of effort required between you and the person you are asking, and hope that the other side eventually gives up. Edit: jakelazaroff pinned it down for me, "sealioning"

ceejayoz 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  I think GP is probably looking for sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    That's the one! Thank you.
torstenvl 2y ago
No. vardump specifically said that the money from stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine. That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the former. We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion. If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  I'm referring to their comments in totality, not just this one specific example.
- vardump 2y ago
  The U.S. failing Ukraine sends a signal you can get away with invasions. So it's not just about Ukraine. The full global consequences can be devastating.
  - torstenvl 2y ago
    That's what "deterrence value" means.
    - vardump 2y ago
      Say it results in a global nuclear war. That might be the worst case scenario. What's the dollar value of that?
rayiner 2y ago
If “interests” means something concrete it shouldn’t take a lot of effort to explain what it means. To me it seems like the word is used to avoid acknowledging that “there’s no there, there.”
- ziddoap 2y ago
  You do this same tactic in every political thread I've seen your name pop up in from as early as I can remember recognizing your name on this site. Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they don't (they might be! but they don't read so). But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-topic. Sorry for the derailment.

ceejayoz 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

jakelazaroff 2y ago
I think GP is probably looking for sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- ziddoap 2y ago
  That's the one! Thank you.

torstenvl 2y ago

No. vardump specifically said that the money from stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine. That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the former. We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion. If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.

ziddoap 2y ago
I'm referring to their comments in totality, not just this one specific example.
vardump 2y ago
The U.S. failing Ukraine sends a signal you can get away with invasions. So it's not just about Ukraine. The full global consequences can be devastating.
- torstenvl 2y ago
  That's what "deterrence value" means.
  - vardump 2y ago
    Say it results in a global nuclear war. That might be the worst case scenario. What's the dollar value of that?

rayiner 2y ago

If “interests” means something concrete it shouldn’t take a lot of effort to explain what it means. To me it seems like the word is used to avoid acknowledging that “there’s no there, there.”

ziddoap 2y ago
You do this same tactic in every political thread I've seen your name pop up in from as early as I can remember recognizing your name on this site. Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they don't (they might be! but they don't read so). But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-topic. Sorry for the derailment.