The avoidability of war

[ImmortalFlame]

I have always won any debate

I doubt you have ever won one. Most of the time our debates end with you running away.

 

[Estro Felino]

Like I said before, believing ethnic groups exist does not mean that you necessarily have to believe that ethno-states are a good thing.

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging that there are British and Italian people, and there is such a thing as a British or Italian culture. I am also, at the same time, perfectly capable of acknowledging that ethno-states are bad and that racial segregation is bad.

Where do you imagine the conflict between these two positions is?

All the debate started because people say that I cannot criticize Soros, because doing that is anti-Semitism.

So if you criticize an Italian tycoon, that would make you anti-Italian?

Do you understand that there is this illogical, insane drift that wants to treat "ethnic groups" as monoliths?
That is, if you condemn one, you condemn the entire ethnic group.
Can you see how far we have gone?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All the debate started because people say that I cannot criticize Soros, because doing that is anti-Semitism.

That's a lie. Most debates start because you say something wrong and people correct you. You invariably go on to mention Soros as if his very mention were like pointing to Sauron in Lord of the Rings: the all-consuming evil of which all men should fear. Most people point out to you that Soros has virtually nothing to do with anything.

The only reason he is brought up is because of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's literally it. You're free to criticise him if you want, but your criticisms very rarely amount to anything more than bringing him up as a bogeyman rather than tangibly talking about anything that Soros has explicitly done.

So if you criticize an Italian tycoon, that would make you anti-Italian?

That depends entirely on how and why you do it. You bring up Soros as an empty gesture towards anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

Do you understand that there is this illogical, insane drift that wants to treat "ethnic groups" as monoliths?
That is, if you condemn one, you condemn the entire ethnic group.
Can you see how far we have gone?

You're not going to run away from this one, Estro.

Soros has nothing to do with any of this, and yet you brought him up. Why? Because he happens to be a politically active billionaire who happens to be Jewish. He's the one anti-semites exclusively wish to talk about, and you seem determined to bring him up in every opportunity even when he not remotely applicable. And you do this without a shred of evidence, a mere hint of any kind of reality, and without any substantive criticism.

Ergo, I believe the reason you bring him up is because you are terrible at debating - I believe, because you have no arguments and you just support authoritarian ethno-nationalism and are willing to say whatever you think may con people into adopting your position - and you have adopted the anti-semitic conspiracy theory that Soros is controlling the world.

So, you are left with a choice. Either make your criticisms of Soros relevant, evidenced and substantive, or stop bringing him up.

Which is it?

 

[Estro Felino]

That's a lie. Most debates start because you say something wrong and people correct you. You invariably go on to mention Soros as if his very mention were like pointing to Sauron in Lord of the Rings: the all-consuming evil of which all men should fear. Most people point out to you that Soros has virtually nothing to do with anything.

The only reason he is brought up is because of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's literally it. You're free to criticise him if you want, but your criticisms very rarely amount to anything more than bringing him up as a bogeyman rather than tangibly talking about anything that Soros has explicitly done.


That depends entirely on how and why you do it. You bring up Soros as an empty gesture towards anti-semitic conspiracy theories.


You're not going to run away from this one, Estro.

Soros has nothing to do with any of this, and yet you brought him up. Why? Because he happens to be a politically active billionaire who happens to be Jewish. He's the one anti-semites exclusively wish to talk about, and you seem determined to bring him up in every opportunity even when he not remotely applicable. And you do this without a shred of evidence, a mere hint of any kind of reality, and without any substantive criticism.

Ergo, I believe the reason you bring him up is because you are terrible at debating - I believe, because you have no arguments and you just support authoritarian ethno-nationalism and are willing to say whatever you think may con people into adopting your position - and you have adopted the anti-semitic conspiracy theory that Soros is controlling the world.

So, you are left with a choice. Either make your criticisms of Soros relevant, evidenced and substantive, or stop bringing him up.

Which is it?

I am sorry, but since I said he's an atheist, because he said he doesn't believe in any god, your argument doesn't add up.

And again, just because I say some (very few) Jewish people are bad, it doesn't mean that all Jewish people are bad.
For example, rightists have the support of prominent members of the Jewish Community of Rome and admire Netanyahu.

By the way, what do you think of Netanyahu? Do you like him?

 

[Estro Felino]

Ergo, I believe the reason you bring him up is because you are terrible at debating -

If you criticize my way of debating, I can criticize yours.

Your way of debating is a continuous, non-stop cycle of ad hominems, refusing to answer questions that the interlocutor kindly asks you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am sorry, but since I said he's an atheist, because he said he doesn't believe in any god, your argument doesn't add up.

Again, Jewish people are not solely a religion. They are also considered an ethnic group. There are a lot of people who are considered, or consider themselves, ethnically Jewish even if they do not believe in the Jewish faith.

This is not unknown to you.

And again, just because I say some (very few) Jewish people are bad, it doesn't mean that all Jewish people are bad.

I never said that was your position. I said you are accepting an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory with regards to Soros. Which you are.

For example, we nationalists have the support of prominent members of the Jewish Community of Rome and we admire Netanyahu.

By the way, what do you think of Netanyahu? Do you like him?

I will not engage with you changing the subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you criticize my way of debating, I can criticize yours.

Your way of debating is a continuous, non-stop cycle of ad hominems, refusing to answer questions that the interlocutor kindly asks you.

Both lies. I do answer questions when they are relevant, and I never engage in ad hominems. My conclusions about you are drawn from the many things you have said in these forums.

 

[Estro Felino]

Both lies. I do answer questions when they are relevant, and I never engage in ad hominems. My conclusions about you are drawn from the many things you have said in these forums.

With all due respect, you cannot hijack my thread talking about anti-Semitism, since I just said that it has been proven that Soros supports the current regime of Kiev (as most leftists from all over the world do).
But since he's got so much economic and political power, he can use that power to influence geopolitics.

So...please...do not hijack my thread and stick to the subject: war, and current wars.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is an ad hominem.

No, it is not. An ad hominem is not "any statement which characterizes me in a way I don't like".

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it is not. An ad hominem is not "any statement which characterizes me in a way I don't like".

Define it, then.

 

[Estro Felino]

Both lies. I do answer questions when they are relevant, and I never engage in ad hominems. My conclusions about you are drawn from the many things you have said in these forums.

I don't draw conclusions about you, because debate is about topics.
Debates are not about what you are like.
Because I profoundly respect you as as person, first and as my interlocutor.
So I would never draw conclusions about what you're like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Define it, then.

An ad hominem is when, instead of attacking your opponent's arguments, you attack personal or unrelated attributes about the person themselves.

My characterizations of you are accurate, based on our interactions, and I do not use them INSTEAD of attacking your arguments. I attack your arguments and draw from them conclusions about your character.

That's not an ad hominem.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't draw conclusions about you, because debate is about topics.

I don't really care if you characterize me in any particular way. I am capable of arguing against inaccurate characterizations.

Debates are not about what you are like.

They are about what ideas we can determine are good, bad, true or false.

You accept a lot of bad and false ideas, and you adopt positions which justify my belief that you are an authoritarian ethno-nationalist.

Because I profoundly respect you as as person, first and as my interlocutor.
So I would never draw conclusions about what you're like.

Well, that's very nice of you.

But I don't care for civility politics.

I don't really care if someone is being extremely polite while advocating for the mass extermination of an entire race of people. I would call that person pro-genocide. I care about the consequences of our ideas, and I judge people on the value of those ideas, not on how terribly nice and polite they are being to me as they ask me kindly to put my hands against the wall so they can, with respect, shoot me in the back of the head.

This whole tangent is just a distraction from the fact that you are unwilling to support your arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't draw conclusions about you, because debate is about topics.
Debates are not about what you are like.
Because I profoundly respect you as as person, first and as my interlocutor.
So I would never draw conclusions about what you're like.

If you really wish to talk about civility and good faith, I ask you to review the following posts.

Not what my post was addressing. Something of a pattern with you, I notice. You make a claim, I pick a hole in, then you immediately jump to another claim.

Too bad your propaganda is so easy to see through.

In answer to your question, I have no idea, but conscription wouldn't surprise me considering Ukraine is currently fighting for it's very existence against an invading army. It tends to happen.

Meanwhile, PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY FLEEING RUSSIA FOR FEAR OF CONSCRIPTION. And many of the first soldiers sent into Ukraine WERE LIED TO ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OPERATION AND HAD NO IDEA THEY WERE HEADING IN TO AN ACTUAL WAR.

Your selective outrage is very telling, Estro. It is clear that your attitude is that you feel it is morally wrong for Ukraine to defend itself, and morally right for Russia to start a war.

Just admit it, already. The mask has dropped so many times, and you're not very good at this. You're just a pro-authoritarian ethno-nationalist.

Notice how I have made substantive points directly responding to claims you have made. Note the number of different arguments. Notice that my conclusions FOLLOW explanations of my position.

Now, here is the entirety of your response to to that post:

Ukraine is a Sorosized country.

That's it.

Do you really, genuinely, honestly want to talk to me about logical fallacies, good faith and civility when THAT is the only response you offer to the above post? And this is far from an isolated incident.

You clearly don't care about good faith debate, good argument, or substantive positions. You have none.

 

[Audie]

I have always won any debate because I use logic and the dogma "the law is equal for all".
No double standards.

Unstoppable.

Like Sia

Wins every single game

 

[Audie]

That sounds like a quote that an erudite person would know.

Being a erudutionist of considerable
note I originalized that quote.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you really, genuinely, honestly want to talk to me about logical fallacies, good faith and civility when THAT is the only response you offer to the above post? And this is far from an isolated incident.

You clearly don't care about good faith debate, good argument, or substantive positions. You have none.

You should understand you and I come from two slightly different cultural backgrounds.
I advise you to watch people debating on Italian TV. They use the same kind of language as I do on this forum.
We often use a keyword, then add -ized and use it as an adjective. So, Sorosized.
But it can be made with any name. Like Berlusconized. And so on.
In journalism, and in headlines, that's the rule. That's the norm.

So I am not weirdo, in my country. In a country where the notion of political correctness doesn't even exist. Or at least, it does, but it is considered something Americans would like to impose on us.
I am perfectly normal in my country.

Of course that means I can sound weird to you, but that's perfectly normal.

 

[Stevicus]

@Father Heathen

Ok, I respect that. I just don't understand the Leftists' doublestandardism. Which is really illogical.
Which is: European peoples cannot protect and preserve their ethnos, and if they do they are called racists and nationalists.
While Jews can claim a some sort of ethnos, even if they are atheists? And they are entitled to their ethnos?
Double standards


That is why rightists are more coherent: they respect the nations and don't call anyone racist or nationalist.

I don't know that leftists embrace "doublestandardism" as much as they've painted themselves into an ideological corner. At one time, leftists seemed more consistent and principled in both their pro-labor economic views and decidedly anti-nationalist, anti-racist positions. They correctly identified that malignant nationalism and racism caused the World Wars and believed that all of humanity would be better off if those ideologies were thrown into the ashcan of history. If they had stayed consistent in that and focused solely on the class struggle and only the class struggle, then their position would have at least been cleaner and more ideologically consistent.

Trouble was, they ostensibly embraced national liberation in the context of oppressed peoples resisting and revolting against their colonial and/or racist oppressors. At the time, it might have seemed politically expedient and relatively benign to do so, but it has been highly problematic. It's led to the ideological trap which many refer to as "identity politics." It's led to contradictory positions which imply that it's okay (or perhaps not quite as bad) to embrace nationalism/racism if it's the context of national liberation and rooting for the underdog against a more powerful oppressor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should understand you and I come from two slightly different cultural backgrounds.

Not according to you. I'm Italian, and you believe our culture is in our DNA. So, apparently, we should have very similar cultural backgrounds.

I advise you to watch people debating on Italian TV. They use the same kind of language as I do on this forum.

I don't care. False civility is false civility. I have seen enough exposes on how Italian politicians talk when they think the cameras are off to know that performative civility is worthless.

We often use a keyword, then add -ized and use it as an adjective. So, Sorosized.
But it can be made with any name. Like Berlusconized. And so on.
In journalism, and in headlines, that's the rule. That's the norm.

I really don't care.

So I am not weirdo, in my country. In a country where the notion of political correctness doesn't even exist. Or at least, it does, but it is considered something Americans would like to impose on us.
I am perfectly normal in my country.

Then your country normalises authoritarian ethno-nationalism.

Of course that means I can sound weird to you, but that's perfectly normal.

No, you don't "sound weird". You sound like an an authoritarian ethno-nationalist espousing an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Once again, you completely change the subject of discussion to something completely unrelated to what I was saying.

Yet again, you prove you have no good faith and no ability to engage in actual debate.

 

[PureX]

Bloodlust and conquest are written into the male human DNA. But we can choose to recognize how self-destructive it is, and decide not to succumb to it.