Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there.
> All two of you?
As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain!
> Flatly untrue
Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it:
The quote, as used by you, does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. So why quote it in that context?
An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
> That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote,
>> Flatly untrue
>>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.
Maybe, but that's what you meant when you said "realistic", right?
The holocaust and the holodomor were both, unfortunately "realistic". Surely you're interested in reasonable, acceptable, realistic options, not simply "realistic" ones, however unreasonable and unacceptable? Otherwise, you'll have to share why you're not interested in realistic, reasonable, acceptable options, which as we've seen, are superior to options which are simply "realistic".
> An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
An appeal to the authority of one person with even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
Since we're on the topic of soliciting alternatives from others: You might suggest a realistic, reasonable, acceptable alternative to what that other poster suggested. This time, I'll play judge, instead of you.
> what you meant when you said "realistic", right?
No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".
> even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
> No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".
You must, yet you still have not! Instead, you omitted everything of substance from my response and just focused on snideness here. Maybe reply to the part of the post that followed that sentence?
> I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
This goes even moreso when I say it:
Myself and other-poster have not even given our perspectives, so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, those people are biased.
Not sure why you took that hard left into accusing others of being biased, but we don't have to have a conversation like that. We can rise above it.
Unfortunately, your post contained nothing about the actual topic: you're just arguing. If you're interesting in having an interesting discussion, focus on substance in your response, rather than attacking me. For guidance there, check the parts of my previous reply which you omitted.
I am not the topic here, and I'm not interested in you making me it.
Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there.
> All two of you?
As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain!
> Flatly untrue
Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it:
The quote, as used by you, does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. So why quote it in that context?