175
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
175 points (98.3% liked)
World News
32586 readers
828 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, if a source is incorrect, feel free to remove it.
Again, provide primary sources for your claims.
I already have sources. If you don't believe them, it's up to you to show that, not me to provode you with endless sources that you anyway will reject for some reason.
Do you understand the concept of a primary source?
Yes.
then feel free to provide some
I'm happy with the current ones, thanks.
You did not provide any primary sources, so evidently you don't understand what a primary source is. Good chat.
Where are your primary sources?
Does that also mean you don't understand what they are?
See this does not work the way you think it does.
I'm not the one making the claim. I'm saying that I have not seen any official Russian statement to this effect. However, if you have a source for one then please show it.
See this does not work the way you think it does.
You are the one claiming the given sources are incorrect. You are the one making a claim, and you are the one the burden of proof falls on.
You are really hurting the Russian case here. They do their best to act all tough and intimidating, and here all you come with is crying about not liking the provided sources. You're making them look even worse then they already do.
I said that you failed to provide primary sources to support your claims.
Yes, and then what? Are you somehow suggesting that only primary sources can be used as sources? I've never heard anyine take that position before.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don't like it.
I'm suggesting that when you say Russian red lines have been crossed without consequences, you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are. I see this is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
The source is incorrect because the red lines claimed in the source haven't actually been articulated by Russia, and none of the links in your source actually trace back to statements from Russia. So, claiming Russian red lines have been crossed when there is zero actual evidence these were Russian red lines is nonsensical.
I actually don't. I need to provide some source. If you are unhappy with that source it's up to you to show that it is a bad source, and why.
I've already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It's not about feels, it's about you making an objectively false statement.
You literally haven't explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.
I literally have repeatedly, the fact that you keep repeating this says all we need to know about your intellectual integrity. Bye.
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.
I did repeatedly and in detail. At least lie about something that's not literally in the same thread.
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?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
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.
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.
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?
Again, none of these quotes state concrete action that Russia is threatening, and that's the key difference between those and the concrete statements Russia made regarding F-16s. The statement in the latter case said that areas of deployment of F-16s would be considered valid targets whether they're in Ukraine or outside of Ukraine. So, if the west ever does decide to deploy F-16s outside of Ukraine we'll see what whether Russia responds as they said they would.
Don't avoid the question. Is the source I linked to accurate, or not? You claimed you looked at many sources and that they contained lies about statements Russia never made, yet just by looking at the first two in order that does not seem to be the case.
So, are the quoted in the linked source accurate or not? If yes, let's take a look at the next source, and then the next, etc. until we find one of the many you claim contains false information.
I didn't avoid the question. From the very start my point was that none of the sources talking about red lines being crossed link back to any actual red lines being articulated by Russia. The two examples you gave confirm my point, you get that right?
No, because the sources do talk about red lines. The quotes even include those specific words.
Now that you realized the sources are actually OK you start redefining what red lines are, even going against what the Russian state itself considers, and even calls, red lines?
Again, please answer the question, are the quotes ftom the article accurate or not. It's a yes or no question. Discussing is much easier if we can establish what is actually being disputed. We can move on the other questions later.
I love how you're aggressively working to avoid understanding what you're being told. Like you really want to be right on this even though we both know you're full of shit.
On the contrary, I am trying to build some type of shared understanding, but you are very insistent on never saying if you actually agree with something or not, so I can never be truly sure what you believe, or are actually trying to say. You are also never trying to confirm if you have understood me correctly, suggesting you are the one not really interested in establishing a shared understanding about what we are talking about.
But since you refuse to answer my previous question, I assume you agree that the quotes are accurate. And since you don't seem interested to further discuss the accuracy of the sources, and because 2/2 sources we looked at were accurate, we can lay the discussion about source accuracy asaide and agree that the sources contain accutate statements, corresponding to Russian state media statements.
Now, it seems the next dispute is what is actually meant by red lines, is that correct? Your thesis seems to be that Russia has not placed any red lines, except for before the invasion of Ukraine (which when crossed triggered the invasion) and now with the F-16s (which would be the only uncrossed one?). But then, what does the quote
refer to? Which red lined on the Russian side? It can't be anything pre-war since those were already broken, and it can't be the fighter-related one since that one is supposedly still in existence?
By refuse to answer your question you mean I refuse to say what you want me to say. I've already stated everything I need to say here, and people reading this thread can make up their own mind. Best of luck to you.
No, by refusing to answer my question I mean refusing to answer my question. Is the quote in the source accurate or not? It is a yes/no question. You can answer it with "yes", you can answer it with "no", or you can even give some longer answer if you desire. But you have not answered it in any way.
Best of luck to you too, you need it.
Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else "Proves" them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.