You can’t just say scientists and not name any or cite any sources

Multiplayer is wild💀

Because it’s an axis

Who discredited it?

Me but for classes

You’re engaging with a ragebait account

Most obvious ragebait account

How about you? Do you think you’re suffering from idiocy?

Cares about Christians in Nigeria while at the same time limiting VISA applications?

Thanks

Rubbish opinion. Read more Marx

Even if my comment were a fallacy (which I disagree), that’s irrelevant because a logical fallacy can still be true

A logical fallacy can be true yes but when it’s things like red herrings and ignoratio elenchis that don’t contribute to the discussion, they don’t need to be brought up. If you actually looked at that link that I provided instead of just outright dismissing it because it’s ‘edgy’ or what not, you’d see examples there of how certain arguments don’t contribute to the discussion, only muddying conversation.

the former including links to western “Freedom Burger Eagle association” type organizations

Right, so you’re you’re doing the very thing you were questioning that commenter of doing: Disregarding the source instead of the content.

Fwiw, I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that, I’m only showing you the contradiction in your claims.

Your cited Wikipedia shows that Ukrainians were involved in the sabotage not that the Ukrainian state was involved in the sabotage. Two very big distinctions here. You also haven’t show where the US was involved in this.

Economic treaties kinda do imply a good intention, don’t they?

Have you ever heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

Additionally, Ukraine’s economy was heavily tied in with Russia’s before the 2014 conflict.

I think this shows a clear trend that runs counter to your claim

Wikipedia list of logical fallacies

I think you should go look at that link again.

and that’s when tankies like me are careful of western sources.

Right, so only taking the points that they agree with you on.

If you believe otherwise, you can bring me some examples instead of generally referring to something

Here’s one:

https://lemmy.world/comment/20878099

Here’s another doing this when asked to cite the UN or Reuters as a neutral source:

https://lemmy.world/comment/19851916

Your argument doesn’t follow a valid syllogistic structure. You’re attempt to clarify still follows a red herring pattern.

The only way to counter the premise:

Europe is antagonizing Russia because it invaded a foreign independent nation

would be to show that Russia isn’t doing so. Russia IS doing so, so it is a correct argument. Any other argument you introduce is a red herring.

You’re going to have to provide some sources that provide publicly verified, conclusive evidence that goes beyond simple leads or speculation for your claim about the Nordstream.

Also Russia’s economic treaties do not prove that they weren’t intending to invade anyways.

Your claim was, “So you dismiss the content just because you dislike the source?”, and my retort was that people in your camp, that is the ml instance and the other instances from the triad, also do the same because they disregard UN or Reuters sourced info on the basis of sumply being bourgeois.

If you personally don’t do that, then the argument doesn5apply to you and you can ignore it

Your positions are correct, but it seems like you’re trying to deflect from the topic at hand. See red herring

How is that any different from what the guys in your camp do?

but there’s much worse evil in the world right now like the US and Israel before his brainwashing can work.

That does not excuse left-wing propaganda though? Especially not of the imperialist kind