I agree with you, but we should not compromise logic just to confirm what we believe.
metapod
joined 1 year ago
To say something is good merely because it has been consumed for a long period.
Very often people use a terrible argument and reach the right conclusion by chance.
I think the point was just that the argument was flawed.
What a convoluted mess you have written, and what about that habit of yours of putting things in other people's mouths? But let me address the raised issues: Ukraine did sign the Minsk agreements, just like Russia signed the Budapest memorandum, which were not conflicting proposals. It doesn't matter which one was signed first, but rather which one is broken first, and by which party. Russia only entered the territory of Ukraine officially in 2022, whereas the Minsk agreements have been proposed and revised since 2014 with no results, and it was confirmed that Ukraine never had intentions to fulfill any of its obligations and were using it as a cover to militarize the country further. You talk about propaganda, but it's precisely propaganda that makes you so quick to dismiss all the undesirable information and shut down conversation that is not going your way. I'm afraid your "tankie" block list will continue to be expanded.
Since you are talking about unhonored agreements, you should know that if Ukraine followed the minsk agreement, there would not be any war right now. And no, I am not suggesting anything. I am just pointing out how the previous argument was fucking stupid. But since you are asking for a suggestion, I suggest Ukraine and Russia meet for peace talks mediated by a neutral country, and let both countries talk about their grievances and find a compromise. This is a historically proven method of solving conflicts. And since Ukraine is such a sovereign country, they should decide for themselves what to do, instead of letting the UK arbitrarily revert actions on a whim.
Would be equally fast if ukraine said "We're done, keep the territory"
Edit: objectively true statement downvoted for being inconvenient to the reader
Then get yourself some better arguments. You are hurting your cause. More context does not hurt. If you are right, it will prove you right.
Sorry, but i hate this argument. Any conflict can end if one side accepts the terms of the other side. You can just pick the side you dont like and say "well. They can end it if they do this now", implying all the destruction is their exclusive responsibility. To make a better assesment of who to blame, you need to get to know what their motives are and any and all context involved. This should be the first step for those seeking peace anyway.
You should not dismiss the guy/gal that said liquor has been around for a long time. That is a valid observation and a counter example to your argument, so it positively contributes to the discussion. Try to think about what makes beer different in that it is also part of society but is proven to cause harm, and come out with a different, stronger argument. A person that points out the flaw of your argument is not necessarily your enemy, and may still agree with you after all. Yes. I'm like that in real life.