I always wonder how is it that you are allowed to post so much in controversial political threads, yet your posts are usually significantly voted down. Does the rate limiting not apply to you?
Also is anyone seriously suggested France or Germany would be next? Wouldn't it be more like Poland? And your perspective reeks of the weeks prior to the Ukraine invasion, where so many swore Russia would never do it, it was just Biden-antagonism. And this isn't me being pro Biden. These are just facts.
I voted for Biden, and while I was unhappy with the result for many reasons, I thought he did an okay job keeping us from getting more deeply involved in the Ukraine war.
Many people seem to take it as axiomatic that the U.S. has an obligation to use force to maintain pre-existing borders. And we simply don’t agree with you about that. The standard for me is whether it’s going to significantly affect the daily life of someone in Iowa.
So maybe I’d care if anyone was seriously saying France and Germany could fall to Russia. But short of that?
How is that even a response to my post? At all? I didn't express any opinion if the US should use force... so I'm not sure what you could agree or disagree with about that.
Your posts are always out there but this one seems completely divorced from reality. On what basis? He didn't pass any laws, he's attacking "DEI" whatever that is...
You haven't argued anything more substantive the other way. I'm speaking colloquially here, if you want a robust argument, you're not going to find it from me right now. This is just a conversation, not a dissertation. If you don't want to engage in it, that's fine. But let's not overdramatize what is happening here right now, which is a basic conversation about intuitions and principles.
You attacked the other poster's claim with a hypothetical. I rebutted yours the same way. Begging for "proof" is beyond the scope of this conversation.
> You haven't argued anything more substantive the other way.
Correct. I provided a dueling hypothetical precisely to illustrate that they had not provided an actual argument. I didn't intend to argue the other way—I honestly haven't formed an opinion on the topic—I just intended to point out that confidently asserting dogma isn't useful or meaningful.
What you call intuitions and principles I call dogmatic beliefs, and dogma is uninteresting to discuss in a mixed-dogma forum like this: it just devolves into a shouting match.
>What you call intuitions and principles I call dogmatic beliefs, and dogma is uninteresting to discuss in a mixed-dogma forum like this: it just devolves into a shouting match.
Well, you were the one who came to the conversation and basically did the 'shouting down' thing rather than substantively engage in anything. All you did was express your disbelief in the lowest form possible, so I'm not sure what you're really complaining about besides your own contributions here. Be the change you want to see!
reply