• sweng@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, you keep repeating how you don’t accept secondary sources. What you don’t repeat (or even mention once) is why you distegard these sources.

    Bye.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes, exactly. You repeated that you don’t accept secondary sources. We agree on that. You also keep repeating that you repeated that, which is also true. You are very good at repeating these things. What you still haven’t said even once is your argument for dismissing all these sources.

        Feel free to link to a primary source showing your argument, and not just “trust me bro, I said it already”. But also, you already said bye, so I’m not sure why you keep coming back? Is that also something you like repeating?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          No, what I repeated is that Russia never actually stated what these sources claim, and these claims come directly from western propagandists. I asked you to substantiate your claim based on what Russia has actually said officially, and you’ve refused to do that because we both know such statements don’t exist. The fact that you are simply incapable of admitting that you’re spreading misinformation is frankly pathetic beyond belief.

          Feel free to link to a primary source showing your argument, and not just “trust me bro, I said it already”. But also, you already said bye, so I’m not sure why you keep coming back? Is that also something you like repeating?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

          • sweng@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago
            1. I have provided sources
            2. You have stated you don’t accept those sources
            3. You have not made an argument for why the sources are wrong.

            Apparently I misunderstood you, and thought you said you had repeatedly told me why the sources are wrong. I asked for a link to where you made the argument, but now you countered with not being able to prove a negative, i.e. you are saying you never gave an argument. Apologies for misunderstanding.

            This brings me back to asking you to provide an argument regarding the sources, since you are the one claiming they are unreliable.

            Sorry again that I misunderstood you, and hopefully this brings us back on track. I’m also sorry I misunderstood that you were done with the discussion when you said “bye”. I can only assume you meant something else now.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              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. Since you’re claiming Russian red lines have been crossed, I asked you many times to provide the red lines that Russia actually stated. The fact that you keep doing mental gymnastics here instead of either providing red lines as stated by Russia or admitting you’re wrong is phenomenal.

              I’ll ask you one last time. Please provide examples of Russia stating red lines that the west has crossed and Russia hasn’t reacted to. As far as I’m aware, Russia’s red line was NATO expansion into Ukraine and the reaction was the start of the war. The other red line that Russia has actually articulated was deep strikes into Russian territory using NATO weapons. This hasn’t happened so far which seems to be an indicator that NATO is not willing to cross this line.

              • sweng@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                1. I make a claim
                2. I provide sources for said claim
                3. You refute the sources
                4. 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

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • sweng@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    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.