Former President Donald Trump says Ukraine should have made concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin instead of going to war with its invading neighbor.
It’s a simple question. They’ve invaded twice in twenty years both resulting in treaties they’ve broken. What exactly is the reason they will not invade again this time outside of your goddamn feelings.
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says “Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries” to, “Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?” What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the “five times” that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you’re wrong. I’m not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.
Right, that’s the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn’t isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won’t show where, for some reason. And now you’re trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that’s the only thing you can do at this point.
You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.
So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There’s no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, “Nuh uh” like you did there. If you’re unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that when you don’t have anything resembling a leg to stand on, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?
Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don’t see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claims that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn’t isolationist.
Other that that part, literally all you have is “no it isn’t,” straight from the argument clinic.
As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.
It’s a simple question. They’ve invaded twice in twenty years both resulting in treaties they’ve broken. What exactly is the reason they will not invade again this time outside of your goddamn feelings.
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says “Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries” to, “Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?” What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the “five times” that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you’re wrong. I’m not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.
That’s the literal subject of this discourse, you’re trying to change the argument lol.
Right, that’s the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn’t isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won’t show where, for some reason. And now you’re trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that’s the only thing you can do at this point.
You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.
So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There’s no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, “Nuh uh” like you did there. If you’re unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that when you don’t have anything resembling a leg to stand on, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?
It is. It’s not, it’s idealist because you ignore really.
If you can’t answer the simple question I’ve stated about a dozen times now your point isn’t facially logically and can be discarded because of it.
What makes you think given the history of invasions in less than 20 years that Russia will simply stop and not invade again.
Simple, just answer the question and stop hiding behind the rest of your crybaby bullshit.
Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don’t see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claims that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn’t isolationist.
Other that that part, literally all you have is “no it isn’t,” straight from the argument clinic.
As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.
So incredibly dumb or troll, gotcha.
Yes, you’d have to be either incredibly dumb or a troll to say that opposing intervention isn’t isolationist, we’ve been over this.
You’d have to be incredibly dumb to not infer my point, you instead seemingly demand I draw it in crayon via simple to understand pictures.