• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                  • Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    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.