Ukraine Can't Win the War

[User]

11 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

There is no way to rationally interpret Trumps comment other than he's favouring Russia in the discourse.

That was not the comment made. 

 

12 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Calling trump a "Russian asset" is at best an exaggeration

No, its an outright absurdity. 

 

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

I can criticize plenty more comments if you'd like. 

Where did this 4% approval figure come from? 
How does he expect a country that's in the middle of a war to hold free and fair elections? 
He knows that his buddy Putin arrests his political opponents right? 

These are vastly more reasonable questions. 

[Videospirit]

50 minutes ago, User said:

That was not the comment made. 

Indeed it was not the comment made. It was giving you important context you need to keep in mind when you read the next sentence.

51 minutes ago, User said:

No, its an outright absurdity. 

Which evidently you neglected to do, as always.

Please come back, and try your argument again.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Which evidently you neglected to do, as always.

Please come back, and try your argument again.

Nah. 

[Videospirit]

1 minute ago, User said:

Nah. 

Congratulations for conceding to losing an argument and admitting you were wrong.

Edited February 19 by Videospirit

[User]

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

Congratulations for conceding to losing an argument and admitting you were wrong.

Nah. 

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

Nah. 

Come on, cheer up, you don't have to feel bad about being wrong. You're on the path to improvement.

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

Come on, cheer up, you don't have to feel bad about being wrong. You're on the path to improvement.

Where was I wrong?

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

Where was I wrong?

And your memory problems have acted up again. Please come back and try your argument again.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

And your memory problems have acted up again. Please come back and try your argument again.

If you can't explain it, apparently I was not wrong after all. 

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

If you can't explain it, apparently I was not wrong after all. 

You were wrong because you never responded to my argument in the first place yet still said it was incorrect. I already explained this. Please come back and try your argument again.

[BeaverFever]

To recap, in just the past couple of daysTrump has

-Falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war

-Suggested that Ukraine (not Russia) is solely responsible for continuing the war, by not making concessions even though Russia could singlehandedly end the war at any time simply by ending their invasion

- Held “peace talks” with Russia without even including Ukraine…..Sudetenland, anyone?

- Provided a “support offer” to Ukraine that would have required Ukraine to provide USA  50% ownership of all its critical minerals while US offers no security or support guarantees in return

- Called Zelenskyy a dictator 

- A lengthy track record of repeating Russian false narratives about the war

 

Anyone who can’t see that Trump is playing for Team Putin is fooling themselves. 

Edited February 20 by BeaverFever

[User]

7 hours ago, Videospirit said:

You were wrong because you never responded to my argument in the first place yet still said it was incorrect. I already explained this. Please come back and try your argument again.

What argument was that?

 

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Anyone who can’t see that Trump is playing for Team Putin is fooling themselves. 

And yet the $$$ and aid is still flowing. It has been since Trump took office. 

And yet Trump is pushing for European countries to do more for Ukraine. 

Maybe, just maybe, this is an absurd conclusion on your part. 

[Videospirit]

13 minutes ago, User said:

And yet the $$$ and aid is still flowing. It has been since Trump took office. 

https://san.com/cc/trump-admin-halts-then-restores-crucial-weapons-shipments-to-ukraine/

 

19 minutes ago, User said:

And yet Trump is pushing for European countries to do more for Ukraine. 

He's pushing for the US to do less for Ukraine. His "pushing" European countries to do more amounts to "If you want to help Ukraine that's your problem not mine." He's flat out said the US will not provide any peacekeepers to Ukraine and that he expects Europe to handle all the responsibility of enforcing whatever deal he's trying to cut with Putin.

[User]

8 hours ago, Videospirit said:

https://san.com/cc/trump-admin-halts-then-restores-crucial-weapons-shipments-to-ukraine/

OK, and? You posted a link. So what? 

8 hours ago, Videospirit said:

He's pushing for the US to do less for Ukraine. His "pushing" European countries to do more amounts to "If you want to help Ukraine that's your problem not mine." He's flat out said the US will not provide any peacekeepers to Ukraine and that he expects Europe to handle all the responsibility of enforcing whatever deal he's trying to cut with Putin.

It is their problem just as much if not more than ours. They should be doing more and we should be doing less. 

 

[Moonbox]

On 2/18/2025 at 5:43 PM, User said:

And this is why Vance is pointing out how European nations are punishing free speech like this. 

You mean Vance went to a security summit, and spun a lot of MAGA culture-war balogna at European leaders.  

On 2/18/2025 at 5:43 PM, User said:

I have already addressed your "need" argument. 

What you really did was sidestep and avoid addressing it, with your "argument" being nothing more than an appeal to an absolutist interpretation of free speech that you already know holds no water.  Even in the US, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable limits to free speech in regards to time, place and manner of expression.  

There are a myriad of easily-explained and reasonable justifications for keeping activists and protestors away from abortion clinics, while you cannot explain any purpose or rationale for "silent prayer" specifically with 100m of them, and what harm is caused by denying it.  Until you can, nothing you're really saying here has much merit.  

20 hours ago, User said:

Amazing. You criticize Trump for one bad comment and make an even more outrageous one yourself. 

Just one bad comment? The President of the United States publicly and explicitly validating the Russian dictator's propaganda talking points on the world stage is just "one bad comment?"  Like...whoopsy!?  

[User]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You mean Vance went to a security summit, and spun a lot of MAGA culture-war balogna at European leaders.  

Oh no. Clearly, they don't like free speech, so yeah, I can see how hearing Vance was terribly upsetting to them. The like having little girls yell at them instead. 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

What you really did was sidestep and avoid addressing it, with your "argument" being nothing more than an appeal to an absolutist interpretation of free speech that you already know holds no water.  Even in the US, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable limits to free speech in regards to time, place and manner of expression.  

There are a myriad of easily-explained and reasonable justifications for keeping activists and protestors away from abortion clinics, while you cannot explain any purpose or rationale for "silent prayer" specifically with 100m of them, and what harm is caused by denying it.  Until you can, nothing you're really saying here has much merit.  

No, I addressed it head on. The entire point of free speech is that you don't have to prove a "need" for anything. You placing such an entirely subjective barrier on speech is absurd. 

We are not talking about reasonable limits when you push the subjective notion of "need"

The entire point here is that you and others are championing criminalizing some guy standing there silently praying and none of you can rationalize how that must be criminalized beyond subjective notions that boil down to you just want someone to be able to kill their baby for the mere convenience of it without having to possibly even see someone that disagrees with them. 

To the point, that is about restricting speech you don't like, not placing any reasonable limitations on speech because there is some kind of actual harm being done. 

[Videospirit]

1 hour ago, User said:

you just want someone to be able to kill their baby for the mere convenience of it without having to possibly even see someone that publicly disagrees with them at the facility they do so.

I had to edit your claim as a tiny bit of additional framing was necessary to make the statement true. My additions are the bolded words, but yes, if you want to phrase it in as unflattering a manner as possible, strip away all the justifications themselves, and just state the position my edit of your statement is something the state has proven justifiable.

Edited February 20 by Videospirit

[User]

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

I had to edit your claim as a tiny bit of additional framing was necessary to make the statement true, but yes, if you want to phrase it in as unflattering a manner as possible, strip away all the justifications themselves, and just state the position my edit of your statement is something the state has proven justifiable.

There are few things on this forum that are as detestable as quoting someone like you did me and changing my words. 

It is dishonest. It is disgusting. It is wrong. 

If you wish to add something or think I should have said something, then put that in your words, not framing them as mine. 

 

[Videospirit]

1 minute ago, User said:

There are few things on this forum that are as detestable as quoting someone like you did me and changing my words. 

It is dishonest. It is disgusting. It is wrong. 

If you wish to add something or think I should have said something, then put that in your words, not framing them as mine. 

 

Ok, than. Your claim was incorrect because of missing context, but since you have forbidden me from quoting you I can't show you what context was missing. Happy now. No one has communicated anything.

But seriously, communication is neither, dishonest, disgusting, or wrong. If you can't parse the language that's a you problem.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Ok, than. Your claim was incorrect because of missing context, but since you have forbidden me from quoting you I can't show you what context was missing. Happy now. No one has communicated anything.

But seriously, communication is neither, dishonest, disgusting, or wrong. If you can't parse the language that's a you problem.

Your response to your despicable dishonesty is to be more dishonest. 

I did not forbid you from quoting me. Stop lying. Stop these dishonest tactics. Be better. 

 

[Moonbox]

33 minutes ago, User said:

No, I addressed it head on. The entire point of free speech is that you don't have to prove a "need" for anything. You placing such an entirely subjective barrier on speech is absurd. 

No, you danced around it, like you do with anything you're pressed on.  There are already subjective barriers on free speech, have been as long as you've been alive, and this was already addressed.  

33 minutes ago, User said:

We are not talking about reasonable limits when you push the subjective notion of "need"

It's exactly what we're talking about.  "Reasonable limits" on free speech are a balance of costs and benefits.  When the benefits of limiting an activity are obvious, and you can't explain any costs or harms in doing so, that's the end of the argument!  😆👌

[User]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, you danced around it, like you do with anything you're pressed on.  There are already subjective barriers on free speech, have been as long as you've been alive, and this was already addressed.  

I am still not dancing around it. 

No, there are clearly defined and extensive legal history around the limitations we have now, none of which are based on there being a "need" proven for the speech. 

You are conflating your absurd notion to prove a need for speech with the fact that there are some limitations to speech. Two different subjects. 

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's exactly what we're talking about.  "Reasonable limits" on free speech are a balance of costs and benefits.  When the benefits of limiting an activity are obvious, and you can't explain any costs or harms in doing so, that's the end of the argument! 

Not when you talk about a subjective notion of "need" in the context of having to prove there is some "need" to have the speech you want. 

There is ALWAYS a subjective benefit to limiting ANY speech you want to based on the subjective feelings of others... which is why it is an absurd standard to defend here. 

 

[Videospirit]

11 minutes ago, User said:

Your response to your despicable dishonesty is to be more dishonest. 

I did not forbid you from quoting me. Stop lying. Stop these dishonest tactics. Be better. 

You forbid me from framing the correction as your words when they were not.

So I am unable to correct your words, because I cannot change your words. I can say words of my own, but my words aren't the problem, your words are. You have forbidden me from fixing your words. Correcting another's mistakes is neither dishonest or despicable.

This is a fairly complex topic however, so I'm skeptical you can understand it. You need to be rather decent at reading comprehension.

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

You forbid me from framing the correction as your words when they were not.

Yes, that is more accurate. When you said I forbid you from quoting me, that is dishonest. 

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

So I am unable to correct your words, because I cannot change your words.

Another lie. 

I already pointed the simple solution out to you in my first response:

"If you wish to add something or think I should have said something, then put that in your words, not framing them as mine. "

2 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

You have forbidden me from fixing your words. Correcting another's mistakes is neither dishonest or despicable.

Another lie. You are free to say I should have said something differently all you want to, but it is disgusting and dishonest to use the quote function here and then change my words in that quote making it look like I said something I did not. 

The fact that you continue to refuse to understand this is just more dumb and dishonest gamesmanship on your part. 

Just apologize, and do not do it again. 

4 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

This is a fairly complex topic however, so I'm skeptical you can understand it. You need to be rather decent at reading comprehension.

Worry about your own inadequacies here right now.