War In Ukraine

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

To me...its chickenshit.

that is an ad hominem fallacy

so not an argument

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...we live in different worlds...you and I.

not sure how I could please you

articulate to me in detail what position you would prefer me to take

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

that is an ad hominem fallacy

so not an argument

Oh? Do tell?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Oh? Do tell?

calling people names in lieu of presenting a cogent argument is called an ad hominem fallacy

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

calling people names in lieu of presenting a cogent argument is called an ad hominem fallacy

Well fine then. You call it what you like. But where I grew up, having others fight your battles is...chickenshit.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Well fine then. You call it what you like. But where I grew up, having others fight your battles is...chickenshit.

there's nothing for me to respond to there

you're basically conceding by default

as you have stopped presenting an argument which I could respond to in good faith

name calling is stupid & boring

so there's nowhere to go with that

an internet forum is only interesting where there is argument in good faith

you can only make your points by logic, that's the game on an internet forum

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

there's nothing for me to respond to there

you're basically conceding by default

as you have stopped presenting an argument which I could respond to in good faith

name calling is stupid & boring

so there's nowhere to go with that

an internet forum is only interesting where there is argument in good faith

you can only make your points by logic, that's the game on an internet forum

And what argument can be made. We are at an impasse.

You find the death of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, so that the USA doesn't have to fight the Russians, a good thing. I find it spineless. Question: Had Russia never invaded Ukraine, would the USA still have to deal with them?

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

48 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

To me...its chickenshit.

that is an ad hominem fallacy

so not an argument

Just a point of order - that is not an ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem is where you dismiss the argument because of a flaw with the presenter of the argument. SO - if he had said To me your argument is wrong because YOU are a chickenshit and chickenshits are always awrong" -  THAT would have been an ad hominem.  Claiming the argument is a 'chickenshit' argument is actually a statement about the quality of the argument itself, not the presenter.

You can address why the argument is or is not a 'chickenshit' one. ALthough i admit i'm not sure what makes it 'chickenshit' in his mind

You really do have to brush up on logical fallacies, you're using the term wrong fairly frequently these days.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Just a point of order - that is not an ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem is where you dismiss the argument because of a flaw with the presenter of the argument. SO - if he had said To me your argument is wrong because YOU are a chickenshit and chickenshits are always awrong" -  THAT would have been an ad hominem.  Claiming the argument is a 'chickenshit' argument is actually a statement about the quality of the argument itself, not the presenter.

You can address why the argument is or is not a 'chickenshit' one. ALthough i admit i'm not sure what makes it 'chickenshit' in his mind

You really do have to brush up on logical fallacies, you're using the term wrong fairly frequently these days.

I'm presenting the NATO argument, acting as a proxy of NATO

saying that my argument is "chickenshit" is ad hominen

NATO is not a person, NATO cannot be "chickenshit"

"chickenshit" is attacking the people, or persons within the alliance, not the 1949 Washington Treaty itself

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm presenting the NATO argument, acting as a proxy of NATO

nope. One cannot act as a proxy without written authorizaiton stating the date time and place of the event for which you are being a proxy, or stating a date range and the type of meeting you can be proxy for.  You have absolutely no authority in any way to be a proxy for nato.

THis is why i point out from time to time that nobody gives a crap what you care about. Your delusions about being a proxy for nato have no merit in the real wolrd regardless of what the voices in your head say.

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

saying that my argument is "chickenshit" is ad hominen

It isn't even close. Please learn what words mean before using them.

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

NATO is not a person, NATO cannot be "chickenshit"

Oh? Define what he meant by chickenshit. I suspect that nato can be.

But - he did specifically reference the actions of nato rather than nato itself. I'm pretty sure actions can be referred to as 'chickenshit'. 

I agree overall more with you than him on this as he knows but you DO have a very bad habit of pretending things are fallacies when they very clearly are not

And your statement that you are a proxy for nato is just like 'scary-delusional'. You're just a nobody on the net, not a

proxy for anyone.

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

"chickenshit" is attacking the people, or persons within the alliance, not the 1949 Washington Treaty itself

 

 

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you want to change sides ?

you argue the NATO position

I will argue for Orange Force

exercise, not real world

Not sure I can...but I'll try.

Go ahead...give us a push forward.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

nope. One cannot act as a proxy without written authorizaiton stating the date time and place of the event for which you are being a proxy, or stating a date range and the type of meeting you can be proxy for.  You have absolutely no authority in any way to be a proxy for nato.

THis is why i point out from time to time that nobody gives a crap what you care about. Your delusions about being a proxy for nato have no merit in the real wolrd regardless of what the voices in your head say.

It isn't even close. Please learn what words mean before using them.

Oh? Define what he meant by chickenshit. I suspect that nato can be.

But - he did specifically reference the actions of nato rather than nato itself. I'm pretty sure actions can be referred to as 'chickenshit'. 

I agree overall more with you than him on this as he knows but you DO have a very bad habit of pretending things are fallacies when they very clearly are not

And your statement that you are a proxy for nato is just like 'scary-delusional'. You're just a nobody on the net, not a

proxy for anyone.

 

I addressed your point already ; moving on

[Dougie93]

51 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not sure I can...

I can certainly look at it from the Russian point of view

I don't reject the Realist argument out of hand

I do think the Russian actions are being driven at the strategic level

there is an increasing imbalance in the Cold War Balance of Terror

Russia is falling behind, they can't keep up with NATO anymore

but then the question is : is their response to that legitimate ?

do they have the right to invade Central Europe as their response to falling behind ?

and that is where your Nationalism comes into play

do the Russians have to right to force other nations to be their no man's land buffer zone ?

because that is the Soviet position

once the Russians start acting like the Soviets, that is where NATO is forced to take action once again

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I can certainly look at it from the Russian point of view

I don't reject the Realist argument out of hand

I do think the Russian actions are being driven at the strategic level

there is an increasing imbalance in the Cold War Balance of Terror

Russia is falling behind, they can't keep up with NATO anymore

but then the question is : is their response to that legitimate ?

do they have the right to invade Central Europe as their response to falling behind ?

and that is where your Nationalism comes into play

do the Russians have to right to force other nations to be their no man's land buffer zone ?

because that is the Soviet position

once the Russians start acting like the Soviets, that is where NATO is forced to take action once again

I don't really understand the Russian desire for this "buffer zone" and frankly, I think its just an excuse. There was an odd little man who became POTUS a while back who said, 'The USA and Russia should become allies.' Most people scoffed at his suggestion. Their reasoning was that 'Russia Bad'. Not a very good reason. Had that been followed through with, I doubt this little war would be happening right now. China would not be as much of a threat either.

Gee...can we get that odd little man back?

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Oh? Do tell?

just to clarify

I'm not saying you are attacking me personally

but I am arguing the NATO position

then you are personifying NATO, addressing NATO as being "chickenshit" ; as if NATO is a person

I'm the only person arguing for NATO in this exchange

so I would have to respond to "chickenshit" as if NATO is a person, as a proxy

but I can't prove a negative

I can't disprove your opinion

and even if NATO was a person, calling that person "chickenshit" is not an argument

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I addressed your point already ; moving on

Sure - you were wrong (Twice) and if you want to move on from that and do better in the future i've got no problem with it.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

just to clarify

I'm not saying you are attacking me personally

but I am arguing the NATO position

then you are personifying NATO, addressing NATO as being "chickenshit" ; as if NATO is a person

I'm the only person arguing for NATO in this exchange

so I would have to respond to "chickenshit" as if NATO is a person, as a proxy

but I can't prove a negative

I can't disprove your opinion

and even if NATO was a person, calling that person "chickenshit" is not an argument

No you're right. Its not really an argument. Its more of an observation.

So you do understand that I wasn't calling you chickenshit. Good.

Lets say you're in a bar and some guy next to you starts hitting you and won't stop. Lets say you turn to the guy on the other side of you and get him to fight for you.

Question: Are you proud of yourself afterwards? I mean...the objective was reached. The 2 guys fought and lets even say your guy won. But when you go home and look yourself in the mirror...are you happy with what you see?

[Dougie93]

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No you're right. Its not really an argument. Its more of an observation.

So you do understand that I wasn't calling you chickenshit. Good.

Lets say you're in a bar and some guy next to you starts hitting you and won't stop. Lets say you turn to the guy on the other side of you and get him to fight for you.

Question: Are you proud of yourself afterwards? I mean...the objective was reached. The 2 guys fought and lets even say your guy won. But when you go home and look yourself in the mirror...are you happy with what you see?

it's not a bar fight, it's a gun fight, so bar fighting rules do not apply

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lets say you're in a bar and some guy next to you starts hitting you and won't stop. Lets say you turn to the guy on the other side of you and get him to fight for you.

Question: Are you proud of yourself afterwards? I mean...the objective was reached. The 2 guys fought and lets even say your guy won. But when you go home and look yourself in the mirror...are you happy with what you see?

But ....what if the guy on the other side of you was ALSO gay and you just didn't want to be accused of being a straight guy who beats on gays?  that way it's gay on gay and you can't be accused of picking on someone just because they're gay.

Also, how did he hit on you? Did he try to buy you a drink? Was it a bud light? Because that's just asking for it right now.

 

I'm probably over thinking this. Carry on.

[Dougie93]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No you're right. Its not really an argument. Its more of an observation.

So you do understand that I wasn't calling you chickenshit. Good.

I don't view it like NATO is cowering in the face of Russia

I view NATO the overwhelmingly more powerful force

so I view NATO as being restrained in this case

NATO is the big dog who has to be kept on the leash, at least until there is an Article V declaration

like in view of the Russian performance in Ukraine ?

if they were fighting NATO ?

they would be getting annihilated

but then they would have to use their tactical nuclear weapons

so we don't want to go there until we absolutely have no other option

Edited April 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's not a bar fight, it's a gun fight, so bar fighting rules do not apply

Use your imagination. How would you feel about yourself?

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But ....what if the guy on the other side of you was ALSO gay and you just didn't want to be accused of being a straight guy who beats on gays?  that way it's gay on gay and you can't be accused of picking on someone just because they're gay.

Also, how did he hit on you? Did he try to buy you a drink? Was it a bud light? Because that's just asking for it right now.

 

I'm probably over thinking this. Carry on.

LOL..."hitting you" not "hitting ON you".

I think takin' the Mick out of robo-bot and Barbie all day, has you reading sideways.

But the comment was funny.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

LOL..."hitting you" not "hitting ON you".

I think takin' the Mick out of robo-bot and Barbie all day, has you reading sideways.

But the comment was funny.

All the threads are blending together for me today....  russia attacked bud lite because nato sent someone's panties to a ukrainan trans girl in a bar,  - that's what we're talking about, right?

Imma just gonna have a nap for a bit i think...

[athos]

Comparing Russian and NATO generals

 

[Moonbox]

33 minutes ago, athos said:

Comparing Russian and NATO generals

 

Russian General:

Russian Soldier: 

Russian leader watching the Ukraine war unfold: