That's a completely ridiculous take. That's not isolationism, that's political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That's what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you're trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
a person favoring a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
Is the literal definition bud.
That's not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you're deflecting.
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
That's literally what I'm arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?
So you're saying you are Ukrainian? If you aren't then you're not an isolationists, you're an naive idealist who seems to think surrendering to a country who is literally beheading and sledgehammering surrendering troops.
You'll have a Russian with more resources, more people and more territory. The last two times the world let that happen we lost over 15 million people... Each time.
So you’re saying you are Ukrainian?
No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country's involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.
Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can't do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there's some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?
And when you can't provide it, as you've been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you're just another liar.
You're not isolating yourself nor you're country, you're actively advocating for actions that weaken left leaning countries and strengthen right leaning ones and at the same limits the ability of us soft power. You're an idealist, you reject reality, history, logic and factual basis in place of the way you feel things should work out though you know in your heart they will not, they can not.
And when you can't provide it, as you've been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you're just another liar.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
Also, don't call yourself a pinko, the far left at least has the fortitude and intelligence to know when their idealism illogical and the birthday to defend. You seem to have none of that.
So, you can't present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I'm not an idealist at all. You've said this several times now but it's completely wrong. If anything, I'd think you'd call me too cynical. It isn't realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it's lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You're the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can't explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can't, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It's a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You're certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I'm not sure where you got the idea they're mutually exclusive. It is, they're doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren't. They're idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they're beheading people on fucking video, they're sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn't play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that's realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It's out of naive idealism but still it's outcome is accelerationist. You aren't an isolationist, you're an idealist.
I've explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I'll elucidate it for you. You aren't opposing intervention, we aren't intervening. We're a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we're making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
I gave you my exact reasoning
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can't just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you're confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You're the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn't say, that's why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you'd defended it when you didn't explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don't know whether I ever entertained "Isolationism isn't isolationism" for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.
That's a completely ridiculous take. That's not isolationism, that's political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That's what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you're trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
Is the literal definition bud.
That's not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you're deflecting.
That's literally what I'm arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?
So you're saying you are Ukrainian? If you aren't then you're not an isolationists, you're an naive idealist who seems to think surrendering to a country who is literally beheading and sledgehammering surrendering troops.
You'll have a Russian with more resources, more people and more territory. The last two times the world let that happen we lost over 15 million people... Each time.
No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country's involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.
Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can't do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there's some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?
And when you can't provide it, as you've been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you're just another liar.
You're not isolating yourself nor you're country, you're actively advocating for actions that weaken left leaning countries and strengthen right leaning ones and at the same limits the ability of us soft power. You're an idealist, you reject reality, history, logic and factual basis in place of the way you feel things should work out though you know in your heart they will not, they can not.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
Also, don't call yourself a pinko, the far left at least has the fortitude and intelligence to know when their idealism illogical and the birthday to defend. You seem to have none of that.
So, you can't present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I'm not an idealist at all. You've said this several times now but it's completely wrong. If anything, I'd think you'd call me too cynical. It isn't realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it's lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You're the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can't explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can't, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It's a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You're certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I'm not sure where you got the idea they're mutually exclusive. It is, they're doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren't. They're idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they're beheading people on fucking video, they're sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn't play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that's realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It's out of naive idealism but still it's outcome is accelerationist. You aren't an isolationist, you're an idealist.
I've explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I'll elucidate it for you. You aren't opposing intervention, we aren't intervening. We're a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we're making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can't just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you're confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You're the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn't say, that's why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you'd defended it when you didn't explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don't know whether I ever entertained "Isolationism isn't isolationism" for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.