6 ms·

[flagged]

• randunel 3y ago
  This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
  • jevgeni 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • randunel 3y ago
      Since you seemed to appreciate logical fallacies, your argument starts with an appeal to emotion [0], then ends with ad hominem [1]. There's no point in your argument, nor in your personal attack, since nobody denied the war or mentioned anything about it in this thread of ours. Siding with the victim doesn't suddenly make your logic perfectly sound, and it doesn't make your peers side with the aggressors, either. Let's keep discussions civil, shall we? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      • Larrikin 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • TeMPOraL 3y ago
          What are you trying to say? To hell with facts and reason, if they're opposing my politics or emotions? I guess critics of enlightenment were right: humans ain't improving shit. We're only pretending to, and it works only as long as the culture allows it.
• arcanemachiner 3y ago
  Pearl-clutching alone is not a valid justification to end a discussion.
  • yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
    It’s not pearl-clutching when you have seen missiles and drones flying towards your house like I have.