Imperialism and illicit drugs commonly go together. However, with Taliban opium eradication efforts in full effect, heroin is in short supply, and experts fear that a new fentanyl crisis could be brewing in the US.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
I’m not here to draw conclusions, just to present the facts (and object to when my words are twisted, when logical fallacies are used to argue against the facts, etc.), which is all I have done.
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course.
That’s a conclusion. Now I’m not trying to get a gotcha or own or something here. I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to. My question is how’d you get there?
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
had someone actually made such a suggestion, that would be interesting. when and where did that happen?
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course
I’m not here to speculate.
That’s a conclusion
ok, goodbye!
I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to.
I understand, and if you wish to apologize for twisting the things I said to try to win an argument, I’ll forgive you.
My question is how’d you get there?
probably the same way you did; using a web browser.
So, how’d you come to the conclusion that the us isn’t to blame for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
because there are zero facts to support it.
you argument is fundamentally flawed. no matter how many ways you twist yourself up, twist my words, or twist anything else, you’re never going to successfully argue against the facts.
you lost this argument hours ago. you’re just torturing yourself at this point.
first, as I’ve said, I’ve presented facts. I’m no here to discuss your straw man r be drawn into any rhetorical “traps” you might try to get me to admit something you can twist into something you can claim as a ‘win”— and I know that’s all you’re after here.
I’m obviously not going to engage with you when I know you’re arguing in bad faith an from a flawed premise.
it’s clear that you’re after some sort of catharsis - something to prove your hours of trolling was worth it, and I’m going to tell you now: you won’t get it from me.
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
You, in this post:
So what conclusion do the facts support if not that the us is to blame for opium production during the occupation?
I’m not here to draw conclusions, just to present the facts (and object to when my words are twisted, when logical fallacies are used to argue against the facts, etc.), which is all I have done.
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course.
That’s a conclusion. Now I’m not trying to get a gotcha or own or something here. I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to. My question is how’d you get there?
had someone actually made such a suggestion, that would be interesting. when and where did that happen?
I’m not here to speculate.
ok, goodbye!
I understand, and if you wish to apologize for twisting the things I said to try to win an argument, I’ll forgive you.
probably the same way you did; using a web browser.
Allow me to repeat myself:
You, in this post:
So, how’d you come to the conclusion that the us isn’t to blame for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
because there are zero facts to support it.
you argument is fundamentally flawed. no matter how many ways you twist yourself up, twist my words, or twist anything else, you’re never going to successfully argue against the facts.
you lost this argument hours ago. you’re just torturing yourself at this point.
Quick response!
Would you say that the United States is responsible for governing industrial and agricultural output during its occupation?
first, as I’ve said, I’ve presented facts. I’m no here to discuss your straw man r be drawn into any rhetorical “traps” you might try to get me to admit something you can twist into something you can claim as a ‘win”— and I know that’s all you’re after here.
I’m obviously not going to engage with you when I know you’re arguing in bad faith an from a flawed premise.
it’s clear that you’re after some sort of catharsis - something to prove your hours of trolling was worth it, and I’m going to tell you now: you won’t get it from me.
Removed by mod