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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.

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.

What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.

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.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And Russia now treats the west as a direct party to the conflict. Thanks for confirming that Russia does what it says.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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:

The embassy said it was now convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,” echoing similar comments from Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier Wednesday as it reacted to the prospect of U.S. Abrams tanks being sent to Ukraine, claiming Washington “has unequivocally stated its desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,”

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

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.