Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180° turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[AgnosticBoy]

I like to abide by standards that will guarantee that I'll reach truth. For that goal, I tend to go by logic and verifiable evidence. I don't simply accept "claims", whether they be from the US or Russia (i expect evidence, as well).

Your standard of ignoring claims from sources with credibility problems is not a logical standard because ignoring such claims doesn't prove anything one way or another

This is where you go wrong: Every year there are billions of claims, many if not most are false. Do you have time to research every one of them? No, of course not. No one does. So when someone like Putin or Trump who have a proven track record of mostly false claims, why listen at all? You'd "logically" [since that is what you claim is your standard] be better off in assuming the truth is the opposite of their claims.

You don't have to listen, but you have no right to tell others to not listen AND investigate. In a debate, all that's required is that claims are backed up with logic and verifiable evidence. All of this other stuff you're bringing up is a distraction from that main goal, a goal which I succeeded at accomplishing days ago.

Yes, in a ideal world, we would investigate each of the billion claims no matter who generates them. But since that is impossible, we look for reliable sources, then evaluate them. When the major news sources like the AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS agree on a news story, and Putin, Trump, and Infowars are on the other side, I suggest you are wasting time evaluating proven liars and factual outliers.

I'm not saying go after every claim, but I can go after one or two claims even if it's from the Russian side. Who knows, out of the two claims I looked up (as opposed to billions), I might find one true, one false, or both false. How does that harm you or me?

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

[Diogenes]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

It is important to recognize how fair AgnosticBoy is; after all he has told us he is. He's empathetic. He said so. He is fair, so he told us. It does not matter to him whether the claim comes from the aggressor [Russia] or the victim [Ukraine]. AgnosticBoy will be fair and seek only truth. He told us so.
If Russia kills a thousand Ukrainian civilians while invading their country, this does not dissuade AgnosticBoy from his sworn duty to be fair to both sides. As the victims hide from Russian aggression on their own land, when Russia bombs their homes, you can count on AgnosticBoy not to "take sides;" if a Ukrainian ducks into the doorway of a military installation for shelter, have no fear; AgnosticBoy will be there to point out his infraction while the victim runs for his life.

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

I don't think it will help to let you know because there's nothing that you could do to stop it, and I don't want the discussion to get too far off track. But for the record, I'm NOT a Russian supporter. I've only voiced support for about .05% out of all their claims and that's only because it was backed by evidence. And I support some of the views from the West on this matter. So I wouldn't make a good Russian but nor am I automatically on the West's side, either.

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

It is important to recognize how fair AgnosticBoy is; after all he has told us he is. He's empathetic. He said so. He is fair, so he told us. It does not matter to him whether the claim comes from the aggressor [Russia] or the victim [Ukraine]. AgnosticBoy will be fair and seek only truth. He told us so.
If Russia kills a thousand Ukrainian civilians while invading their country, this does not dissuade AgnosticBoy from his sworn duty to be fair to both sides. As the victims hide from Russian aggression on their own land, when Russia bombs their homes, you can count on AgnosticBoy not to "take sides;" if a Ukrainian ducks into the doorway of a military installation for shelter, have no fear; AgnosticBoy will be there to point out his infraction while the victim runs for his life.

# Appeal to emotion? Sarcasm? What purpose does it serve?

An appeal to emotion is an effort to win an argument without facts, logic, or reason, but instead by manipulating the emotions of the audience.
Source: https://www.mometrix.com/academy/appeal ... 20audience.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

I don't think it will help to let you know because there's nothing that you could do to stop it, and I don't want the discussion to get too far off track.

Yet ya felt it was so important, ya just had to tell it.

But for the record, I'm NOT a Russian supporter.

And for the record, I didn't say nothing about that.

As the remainder of your post fails to identify our problem automatic side taker, I'll leave it be with the following conclusion...

Your ability to accuse folks of stuff is hampered by your refusal say who's guilty.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here.

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

It is important to recognize how fair AgnosticBoy is; after all he has told us he is. He's empathetic. He said so. He is fair, so he told us. It does not matter to him whether the claim comes from the aggressor [Russia] or the victim [Ukraine]. AgnosticBoy will be fair and seek only truth. He told us so.
If Russia kills a thousand Ukrainian civilians while invading their country, this does not dissuade AgnosticBoy from his sworn duty to be fair to both sides. As the victims hide from Russian aggression on their own land, when Russia bombs their homes, you can count on AgnosticBoy not to "take sides;" if a Ukrainian ducks into the doorway of a military installation for shelter, have no fear; AgnosticBoy will be there to point out his infraction while the victim runs for his life.

To be fair, them mean ol' Ukrainians ain't put em out so much as a welcome mat.

Nor would I.

[AgnosticBoy]

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

I don't think it will help to let you know because there's nothing that you could do to stop it, and I don't want the discussion to get too far off track.

Yet ya felt it was so important, ya just had to tell it.

Sure, out of courtesy to you because you asked. I was hoping that you would've understood what I was referring to without my having to name names . But I won't bring it up again unless it happens again.

[AgnosticBoy]

Some of the standards that I disagree with throughout this debate...
1. I shouldn't bring up the wrongs of the Ukrainians at all (e.g. positioning weapons in residential areas, fighting amongst civilians, etc.), even if there is verifiable evidence for it.
2. I should never look into the claims of the Russians because it will always be a lie and because they are not on my side.
3. If you support one claim from the Russians, then you are on the Russian side, and you're justifying the invasion.
4. Then there's your appeal to emotion, where someone tries to make you look bad (On Twitter that has been used to try to silence people), as opposed to trying to keep the conversation based on facts.
5. Another angle of appeal to emotion is when some think that sympathy is on par with validity or that two have to go together given the situation or moment. As I told historia, this depends on what context you're in. If you're in a debate (and I'd argue that we should be helping more rather than typing on a computer, especially for those who want to appeal to sympathy), the logic and evidence is the only thing that proves your case.

My analysis..
A lot of these standards try to utilize popularism which is a similar pattern I find on Twitter. Imagine trying to handle international relations by telling the Russians I'm not listening to you. Yep, that's a good start, especially when you expect them to listen to you. I could see the same tactics playing out in debates between Republicans and Democrats and Christians and atheists.

[JoeyKnothead]

Please tell us who's guilty of this charge, that we can fuss at em for it.

I don't think it will help to let you know because there's nothing that you could do to stop it, and I don't want the discussion to get too far off track.

Yet ya felt it was so important, ya just had to tell it.

Sure, out of courtesy to you because you asked. I was hoping that you would've understood what I was referring to without my having to name names . But I won't bring it up again unless it happens again.

Naw, now what I asked was who was it we needed to fuss at.

As it stands, now I gotta fuss at everybody, just so's the guilty party knows we mean business.

Or we conclude your claim's an empty attempt to smear those who disagree with you.