NATO Gives Ukraine Permission To Strike Targets Inside Russia With F-16s
NATO just started WW3. Defund NATO.
Oh I’m sorry, did NATO roll tanks into Ukraine? Or was that Russia?
You just committed the Straw Man Fallacy – you debunked a position he never claimed to have, namely…
No their statement refers to the thought that NATO was starting WW3, which is false, alongside the fact that one of the two is creating the fighting forces, and it’s not NATO.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
And is that claiming that Russia never rolled the tanks into Ukraine? No, he never claimed that. Whatever your thoughts about the claim he made, can you, for Heaven's sake, if you want to engage in conversation about this, debate the claims HE ACTUALLY MADE rather than ones HE DIDN'T? Plus, (English lesson here!) when the sex of a person is unknown, you refer to him with he/him/his, because they/them/their means a group of people, not just one. They changed the English language to stop offending sissies who are hurt emotionally by human communication – but if you want to be correct, persons of unknown sex are always assumed to be male, and entities such as ships, countries, etc, are referred to as "her". Don't contribute to the degradation of our Great Language.
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
An implication is not confirmation they thought they were adding the statement in there, they added that statement as an inside statement, not actually thinking they were debating that, because the fact that Russia sent tanks is really obvious.
Also, reverse English lesson, English is not a romantic language, nor has the neuter-word for someone of an unknown gender been “he/him” in over a century, not due to any attempt to appease queer people (though second-wave feminists did create the public support for the singular they), but because defaulting to he/him actually created probl… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
They make these wonderful things called BOOKS – you really ought to open one sometimes – and if you flip one open that was written before the year 2000, ten to one it will use "he" for persons of unspecified gender, because that was accepted grammar convention at that time. I don't care if it was used because of females in Congress being offended by "he" – they can bloody resign if they're going to waste melodramatic tears over something so stupid as that – in fact, they should be impeached if they're that victimised and hyper, hyper sensitive.
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
You’ve used the singular they at least 40 different times over the course of our arguments, and the history of it goes back to 1375 from a medieval romance in MIDDLE ENGLISH called “William and The Werewolf”, which had little to no pushback by the public for 400 years. It’s popularization has drastically outdone that of a “he” neuter word, since that’s by design not a neuter word, and doesn’t match with the actual gender of at least half the population, so if anything, it’s an arbitrary rule itself. Spanish people could also use that exact… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
You’ve used the singular they at least 40 different times over the course of our arguments
I'm flattered you were so offended you bothered to count! But the very mention of that is, and of itself, a logical fallacy – the Appeal to Hypocrisy. Just because I used language in a way I in retrospect shouldn't have does not mean that you get a free logical ride for committing the same error yourself. In fact, I've been actively working to reduce my use of that term, in conformity with new knowledge I've acquired of the English Language, and am getting better. That Neo… Read more
