So, you can’t present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I’m not an idealist at all. You’ve said this several times now but it’s completely wrong. If anything, I’d think you’d call me too cynical. It isn’t realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it’s lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You’re the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can’t explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can’t, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It’s a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You’re certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I’m not sure where you got the idea they’re mutually exclusive. It is, they’re doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren’t. They’re idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they’re beheading people on fucking video, they’re sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn’t play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that’s realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It’s out of naive idealism but still it’s outcome is accelerationist. You aren’t an isolationist, you’re an idealist.
I’ve explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I’ll elucidate it for you. You aren’t opposing intervention, we aren’t intervening. We’re a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we’re making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you’re confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You’re the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn’t say, that’s why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you’d defended it when you didn’t explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don’t know whether I ever entertained “Isolationism isn’t isolationism” for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t point out a lie, lack of clarity, misunderstanding nothing. You’ve cried and removeded for 6 messages now about how I’m so cruel and mean because I won’t elaborate but you can’t or won’t point out a single thing you’ve not understood.
The point I don’t understand is how my stance doesn’t meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided, in every single way, to a t. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you’ve done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation, anywhere, whatsoever. Now you’re repeatedly claiming that you’ve explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you’ve resorted to just calling me a troll.
So, you can’t present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I’m not an idealist at all. You’ve said this several times now but it’s completely wrong. If anything, I’d think you’d call me too cynical. It isn’t realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it’s lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You’re the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can’t explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can’t, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It’s a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You’re certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I’m not sure where you got the idea they’re mutually exclusive. It is, they’re doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren’t. They’re idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they’re beheading people on fucking video, they’re sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn’t play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that’s realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It’s out of naive idealism but still it’s outcome is accelerationist. You aren’t an isolationist, you’re an idealist.
I’ve explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I’ll elucidate it for you. You aren’t opposing intervention, we aren’t intervening. We’re a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we’re making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can’t just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you’re confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You’re the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn’t say, that’s why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you’d defended it when you didn’t explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don’t know whether I ever entertained “Isolationism isn’t isolationism” for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.
I provided literal definition.
I’ve elaborated multiple times.
You are acting like a troll.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t point out a lie, lack of clarity, misunderstanding nothing. You’ve cried and removeded for 6 messages now about how I’m so cruel and mean because I won’t elaborate but you can’t or won’t point out a single thing you’ve not understood.
The point I don’t understand is how my stance doesn’t meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided, in every single way, to a t. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you’ve done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation, anywhere, whatsoever. Now you’re repeatedly claiming that you’ve explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you’ve resorted to just calling me a troll.
What an absolute clown.