I’m saying that what your sources claim has never been stated by Russia, and none of these sources actually link to anything ever stated by Russia.
Yes, that is a claim you make. It is up to you to support that claim that you are making. That is how discussions generally work.
I make a claim
I provide sources for said claim
You refute the sources
You provide an argument for why the sources should not be believed.
Step 4 is what is missing, unless you count “because I say so” as a valid argument.
It would be easy to take a source, look at e.g. a quote in the source, it’s attribution and source, and then check if such a person in fact did make such a claim. If e.g. an article claim person X working for ministry Y made a pressrelease on date Z, but that person is know to work somewhere else, and no press release was made at all that day, then it’s easy to disprove the source. That is how you discuss. Not just “sure, you provided a source, but not the source I wanted, so therefore I will ignore it”. That kind of argumentation is not the least bit productive
To sum up, you said Russian red lines have been crossed. I asked you to point to statements from Russia where these red lines you’re talking about are being declared. You have not been able to do that. Instead, you’ve spent two whole days doing sophistry. You’re not fooling anybody here.
To make an analogy, it would be like me claiming that you say that you love to fuck goats because a friend of mine says that you said you love to fuck goats. Then when you ask me to point where you actually said that, I just keep insisting that I trust what my friend said.
Great analogy! See, I could easily argue that your friend does not know who I am, and thus can’t possibly know if I fuck goats or not. I could also e.g. ask for details, e.g. can your friend tell when I fucked a goat? If yes, great, because maybe I can show that I was, in fact, not fucking goats at the time.
Note how I don’t dismiss your friend as a source simply because they are your friend, as that would be an ad-hominen logical fallacy.
Note how nothing my friend says has any relation to whether you fuck goats or not the same way as your source has nothing to do with Russia’s actual red lines.
I’m not sure I follow? Are you saying your friend says I fuck goats, but in fact they do not? Would it not be quite simple to ask them, and dismiss them as a source since they themselves say they aren’t one?
Regardless, when given a source, one looks at the content, not who or what the source is (ad hominem). If there is no argument for rejecting the source based on the content, it should be accepted.
You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.
I still think you made a good analogy, and as I stated, one should look at what your friend had to say about the goats: if they deny having said anything related to my goats the situation is clear. If they claim it is true, I can check the veracity of their claim. What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.
You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.
I did repeatedly, and you keep doing mental gymnastics trying to avoid acknowledging what I said. And what I said, for the hundredths time, is that Russia never made the statements that your source attributes to it.
What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.
That is absolutely not what I did. In fact, I looked through several of the linked sources trying to find links to original statements from Russia which they do not provide.
Since all you’re capable of doing is lying there’s clearly no point continuing. Feel free to write another word salad though.
In a briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory”.
If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.
The discussion started off with fear of escalation. If Russia considers the west part of the war, and thst results in (checks notes) nothing at all, then it seems we are indeed fine, and no need to worry.
And it’s also good you admit that at least some of the sources are good. Shall we now together go through each red line in the Wikipedia article and repeat this excercise?
The embassy said it was now convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”
Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,” echoing similar comments from Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier Wednesday as it reacted to the prospect of U.S. Abrams tanks being sent to Ukraine, claiming Washington “has unequivocally stated its desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”
Yes, that is a claim you make. It is up to you to support that claim that you are making. That is how discussions generally work.
Step 4 is what is missing, unless you count “because I say so” as a valid argument.
It would be easy to take a source, look at e.g. a quote in the source, it’s attribution and source, and then check if such a person in fact did make such a claim. If e.g. an article claim person X working for ministry Y made a pressrelease on date Z, but that person is know to work somewhere else, and no press release was made at all that day, then it’s easy to disprove the source. That is how you discuss. Not just “sure, you provided a source, but not the source I wanted, so therefore I will ignore it”. That kind of argumentation is not the least bit productive
To sum up, you said Russian red lines have been crossed. I asked you to point to statements from Russia where these red lines you’re talking about are being declared. You have not been able to do that. Instead, you’ve spent two whole days doing sophistry. You’re not fooling anybody here.
To make an analogy, it would be like me claiming that you say that you love to fuck goats because a friend of mine says that you said you love to fuck goats. Then when you ask me to point where you actually said that, I just keep insisting that I trust what my friend said.
Great analogy! See, I could easily argue that your friend does not know who I am, and thus can’t possibly know if I fuck goats or not. I could also e.g. ask for details, e.g. can your friend tell when I fucked a goat? If yes, great, because maybe I can show that I was, in fact, not fucking goats at the time.
Note how I don’t dismiss your friend as a source simply because they are your friend, as that would be an ad-hominen logical fallacy.
Note how nothing my friend says has any relation to whether you fuck goats or not the same way as your source has nothing to do with Russia’s actual red lines.
I’m not sure I follow? Are you saying your friend says I fuck goats, but in fact they do not? Would it not be quite simple to ask them, and dismiss them as a source since they themselves say they aren’t one?
Regardless, when given a source, one looks at the content, not who or what the source is (ad hominem). If there is no argument for rejecting the source based on the content, it should be accepted.
You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.
I still think you made a good analogy, and as I stated, one should look at what your friend had to say about the goats: if they deny having said anything related to my goats the situation is clear. If they claim it is true, I can check the veracity of their claim. What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.
I did repeatedly, and you keep doing mental gymnastics trying to avoid acknowledging what I said. And what I said, for the hundredths time, is that Russia never made the statements that your source attributes to it.
That is absolutely not what I did. In fact, I looked through several of the linked sources trying to find links to original statements from Russia which they do not provide.
Since all you’re capable of doing is lying there’s clearly no point continuing. Feel free to write another word salad though.
I open the very first source for the most recent red line in the wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-46
Whst does it say?
In a briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory”.
If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.
Is your claim that Zakharova said no such thing?
And Russia now treats the west as a direct party to the conflict. Thanks for confirming that Russia does what it says.
The discussion started off with fear of escalation. If Russia considers the west part of the war, and thst results in (checks notes) nothing at all, then it seems we are indeed fine, and no need to worry.
And it’s also good you admit that at least some of the sources are good. Shall we now together go through each red line in the Wikipedia article and repeat this excercise?
Let’s take the first source for the previoud broken red line (going in order so there is no cherry picking): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-44
The article contains the quote:
Is your claim that none of the sources given in the article, e.g. https://germany.mid.ru/ru/press-centre/news/kommentariy_posla_rossii_v_germanii_s_yu_nechaeva_o_reshenii_pravitelstva_frg_o_postavkakh_ukraine_t/ contain that information?