If Trump continues the policies of his first term, but dial it up as many say he will. He will destroy not only NATO, but American international influence in general, because nobody can trust USA. That will do a lot of harm to American economics especially over time, USA has essentially decided the terms for international trade since WW2, helped by their many allies, ending that will be very costly for USA.
Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine
Absolutely.
Ukraine has not received ICBMs, articles stating Ukraine has received long range missiles are wrong, Ukraine has only received SHORT ranged missiles. up to 300 miles. It’s longer range than artillery, but not long range missiles. Long range missiles have several thousand miles range.
Actually we might even be working against the cause.
That would mean destruction of NATO. No European country can be in a defense alliance with a country that actively support an invasion by Russia in Europe.
This is insane, there should be fines for frivolous lawsuits like this.
Det er desværre bare en utrolig dårlig mediestrategi ikke at være til stede på de platforme, som borgerne bruger.
Det er jo heller ikke meningen det skal fungere på den måde. Det er nyhedsmediernes opgave, og så følger vi med gennem nyhedsmedier.
Det er jo ikke meningen man skal subscribe til alle mulige ministerier og politikredse og andre offentlige instanser på sociale medier for at få relevant information, og da slet ikke på sociale medier der har sine egne ekstreme politiske målsætninger om at gøre vesten til et fascistisk oligarki.
Hele ideen om at offentlige instanser bruger sociale medier er sygelig.
I understand that was meant as sarcasm, but actually they have become cheaper, in the way that new cheap EV models are arriving with much better range than previous cheap models.
So we passed 1000 days, meaning Russia has for one thousand days sacrificed 725 people per day on average in this war.
Pootin and the Russians must be so proud of all they have accomplished in that time. /s
Often they are fake, and just filled with cardboard. Corrupt Russia at its best.
Russians keep pushing hard! But allegedly the war is losing support in Russia, and the people have only just begun to feel the economic pain of it. Because Putin has pumped money from their war chest into the economy and to people the first 2 years.
interest rates just hit 20%
Russian central bank interest rate is 21%, If you need to borrow to buy a house, the rate is allegedly around 35%, and even higher for businesses.
I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:
A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”
I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.
But this part:
Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.
I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?
From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.
In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.
Those losses are massive. The air attack must have been huge.
It’s like the Russians are panicking?
your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem
I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?
THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,
Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.
Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.
I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.
Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot
That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.
And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.
Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?
None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.
But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.
So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.
A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person
Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.
He/She doesn’t understand anything, he/she doesn’t know me.
If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."
But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.
I’m not sure what you mean? The war is close to 1000 days old, meaning the average is just above 9 tanks lost per day.
So 8 is pretty close to average, the difference being that Russia had plenty in the beginning, but are running short now.
Probably the same for pregnant women. I wonder what could be the cause for this?
we don’t have an explanation.
Wow really? Are they really that far gone in denial about sexual education and abortion rights?
I guess it won’t get better soon then.
So they claim to track actual output themselves, but it’s still a very big question whether that is accurate?
I have heard that Chinese research is riddled with fake research papers estimated at about half of it being copied from works of others.
The same is allegedly true for getting into higher education in China, the competition is so steep that people cheat to get in.