108
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
108 points (95.0% liked)
World News
32326 readers
703 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Really shifting the goalposts there.
You start with
Then someone provides a list of such events that are from Russia and not the US, then you shift to
The original commenter didn't say they were without context. They simply said that the threats were made, which they were. You were so adamant that they weren't made that when you were shown proof that they were made, you have to reframe it.
That's like, a logical fallacy, or something. I think. 🤔
Didn't happen. These are all responses to threats, not threats themselves.
What a weird framing you're taking. They're literally threats. They're contingent threats, but they're still threats. Your claim was that they have not made threats; in reality, they have.
Also: isn't every threat contingent? If the threat is "I will use nukes if X event occurs" it's contingent on X occurring. If the threat is "I will use nukes" then it's still contingent, but the contingency is implied: "I will use nukes if I want to". There is no such thing as a threat that isn't contingent.
In fact, since you asserted that the only threats had come from the US, can you point to any sources from the US that are threats (and let's use your definition of threats here, too: you don't get to point to a contingent threat)?
Okay then everyone is always in a state of threatening each other. Kind of meaningless.