No, no, you’re definitely in the wrong here. Let’s go through the play-by-play:
Famko said: “Let Ukraine put their weapons down so that Russia would annex and genocide them? Let’s not forget that Russia is a nazi state, hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy.”
AlteredEgo said: “But there is no evidence for your premise. Russia was an antagonist interfering in other countries before the Ukraine regime change, but they didn’t engage in conquest and genocide. Nor do I know of state sanctioned discrimination between the different ethnicity living in Russia.”
You said: “So because Russia had other conflicts where they didn’t commit genocide, it’s impossible for them to commit genocide in the future? Or if they do start doing genocide them it’s actually someone else’s fault?”
So here we see someone positing that Russia will genocide Ukraine if Ukraine surrenders and someone saying that there’s no evidence of this in the history of the RF for the last 30 years and there’s no evidence of it happening now. You said that just because Russia didn’t commit genocide previously doesn’t mean it’s impossible for them to commit genocide in the future.
So now we have AlteredEgo coming back to say, paraphrased “[wait, are you saying that if it’s possible that Russia might commit genocide against Ukraine in the future that this is sufficient for why we should fight a war of total domination against them?”]
Because that’s the context of the thread you jumped into
Yes, I read their posts just fine, nothing you said is news. I objected that “there’s no evidence Russia has ever done genocide before” is not a coherent argument against the allegations that Russian forces are committing genocide previously. I also disagree there’s no evidence it’s happening now, but the particular argument that “they didn’t do it in a different war, so they can’t be doing it in this one” is just absurd on its face and was the one I wanted to reply to the most.
That’s not what was said. What was said was that there is not evidence of a genocide happening now, and the response was that they COULD commit a genocide if Ukraine surrendered.
No, no, you’re definitely in the wrong here. Let’s go through the play-by-play;
But there is no evidence for your premise. Russia was an antagonist interfering in other countries before the Ukraine regime change, but they didn’t engage in conquest and genocide.
So this here is a post, from AlteredEgo. In it, they said that Russia doing things in the past that weren’t conquest and genocide meant that somehow genocide cannot be happening now.
Famko said: “Russia is a nazi state, hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy.”
and AlteredEgo said: “Russia was an antagonist interfering in other countries before the Ukraine regime change, but they didn’t engage in conquest and genocide. Nor do I know of state sanctioned discrimination between the different ethnicity living in Russia.”
So AlteredEgo is providing the evidence against the claim that Russia is a nazi state hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy. If this were the case, it would seem that we would see evidence for it in their other conflicts and we do not.
No, no, you’re definitely in the wrong here. Let’s go through the play-by-play:
Famko said: “Let Ukraine put their weapons down so that Russia would annex and genocide them? Let’s not forget that Russia is a nazi state, hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy.”
AlteredEgo said: “But there is no evidence for your premise. Russia was an antagonist interfering in other countries before the Ukraine regime change, but they didn’t engage in conquest and genocide. Nor do I know of state sanctioned discrimination between the different ethnicity living in Russia.”
You said: “So because Russia had other conflicts where they didn’t commit genocide, it’s impossible for them to commit genocide in the future? Or if they do start doing genocide them it’s actually someone else’s fault?”
So here we see someone positing that Russia will genocide Ukraine if Ukraine surrenders and someone saying that there’s no evidence of this in the history of the RF for the last 30 years and there’s no evidence of it happening now. You said that just because Russia didn’t commit genocide previously doesn’t mean it’s impossible for them to commit genocide in the future.
So now we have AlteredEgo coming back to say, paraphrased “[wait, are you saying that if it’s possible that Russia might commit genocide against Ukraine in the future that this is sufficient for why we should fight a war of total domination against them?”]
Because that’s the context of the thread you jumped into
Yes, I read their posts just fine, nothing you said is news. I objected that “there’s no evidence Russia has ever done genocide before” is not a coherent argument against the allegations that Russian forces are committing genocide previously. I also disagree there’s no evidence it’s happening now, but the particular argument that “they didn’t do it in a different war, so they can’t be doing it in this one” is just absurd on its face and was the one I wanted to reply to the most.
That’s not what was said. What was said was that there is not evidence of a genocide happening now, and the response was that they COULD commit a genocide if Ukraine surrendered.
No, no, you’re definitely in the wrong here. Let’s go through the play-by-play;
So this here is a post, from AlteredEgo. In it, they said that Russia doing things in the past that weren’t conquest and genocide meant that somehow genocide cannot be happening now.
Nope. You’re skipping over the important bits.
Famko said: “Russia is a nazi state, hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy.”
and AlteredEgo said: “Russia was an antagonist interfering in other countries before the Ukraine regime change, but they didn’t engage in conquest and genocide. Nor do I know of state sanctioned discrimination between the different ethnicity living in Russia.”
So AlteredEgo is providing the evidence against the claim that Russia is a nazi state hellbent on promoting Russian ethnic supremacy. If this were the case, it would seem that we would see evidence for it in their other conflicts and we do not.
This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.