patrick.net

All it took was a lifetime supply of chicken wings and donuts to bribe Whoopi. I think they have to change to a wide angle lens to even photograph her any more. What a waddling pile of psychotic loud mouth shit.

Boris Johnson: "I would rather plunge my tits into boiling oil before I'd take that fookin' death jab!"

FJB says

richwicks says

Also, don't fucking stawman me.

LOLZ....

Where have I heard that one before?

Probably several times. It's an annoying logical fallacy that if you commit with me, you probably do it repeatedly.

People who "reframe what other people have said", are being dishonest. Jordan Peterson demonstrated this repeatedly with a "news" reporter on the BBC. He won't be invited on again, because he demonstrated how dishonest so-called reporters are.

You can quote me, but do not fucking do some bullshit like "so you're saying..." - no. I said what I said. It's nothing but annoying when people pull this shit to "win an argument". We can have a discussion, but don't bother me with an argument.

That look you get when you realize Switzerland is no longer returning your calls.

"Due to the expansion of Arctic ice, a group of polar bears has annexed uninhabited Russian island Kolyuchin as a vacation home. They look good and fat healthy. Extinction? Population has been growing."

AN ANIMATED OVERVIEW

How do you make Putin laugh?

Krugman; the Anti-Telepathist. Being 0 for 100 defies probability to such an extent, it is statistically inspired:

Last time I tried to plant a seed, she slapped me.

richwicks says

"so you're saying..."

Agreed, but analogies aren't strawman.

An analogy likens one situation to another. A straw man is a mischaracterization of another's argument or position in order to "refute" it. More precisely, a strawman is a logical fallacy in which the opponent's case is overly simplified or otherwise misstated.

Justice Breyer, given the choice between retirement or the 'Scalia Pillow', asks, "Whatever happened to the bullet or the silver? I could use some silver."
https://t.me/JovanHuttonPulitzer/3788?source=patrick.net

richwicks says

mostly reader says

richwicks says

So then, Europe removed their nuclear capability to allow Russia to invade Ukraine? That's the implication you're suggesting.

OMG, how did you even get there?? How did you go from what's in evidence - that Russia is a backstabbing SOB who signed the treaty and then broke it because the treaty left Ukraine defenseless - to this "Europe wanted it to happen" spin? Are you saying that Europe should've known that Russia is a backstabbing SOB?

Sure.

They know the United States is.

Also, don't fucking stawman me.

It's PERFECTLY obvious to me that the assholes in power have been setting up for DECADES for a war with Russia. For DECADES. The West ALWAYS disarms any nation they plan to attack. Always, every goddamned time. They did it to Saddam Hussein, they tried with Bashir al-Assad, they did with Qaddafi in Libya - t...

Where did I strawman you? It's an honest question, and be specific. I formed my assumption as a question because it's extremely difficult to parse your logic. I'd say - looking into your logic is like looking into abyss. It's fun at times but there is no coherent picture outside of vague "US bad, no US good".

I honestly tried to parse your logic, and came out with this - "Europe should've known that Russia is a backstabbing SOB, and the entire treaty was meant to get Russia to attack Ukraine after Ukraine surrenders the nukes, because Russia is a backstabbing SOB, and Europe knew that Russia is a backstabbing SOB." Then I tried to clarify if this was your thinking. By asking you. And now I strawman you? How?

You see. We have a situation in which US, GB, Russia assured a number of other countries (Ukraine being one) that they should surrender their nukes in exchange for assurance of safety. And then Russia acts like a backstabbing SOB towards Ukraine after Ukraine has surrendered the nukes. And then there is a forum contributor who attempts to shift blame elsewhere. Away from Russia, the assailant, and towards the Europe, because "Europe should've foreseen the assault by Russia.". Furthermore, the forum contributor goes out of the way to avoid using any negative terms towards the actual assailant, while using the entire vocabulary of them towards all other parties.

Then I'm split between recommending that such forum contributor sees a shrink on one hand, and asking how much such forum contributor gets paid per post on the other.

The fact that you, richwicks, IMMEDIATELY dragged US into your response makes the "how much you get paid per post" question more relevant than the shrink spin.

You do understand that the evil US/Europe/AngoSaxons DIDN'T attack Russia when they had every reason to do that in 2014 by your logic, don't you? Not at least in the way that you imply when you use the word "war". This kinda undermines your entire premise, doesn't it?

It's kinda fun watch you fit square peg into the round hole. In "morbid curiosity" kind of way.