Moldova - the new anti-Russia?

You are free to read and believe any nonsense that you like. Don't expect others to respect your false assumptions though. Like you keep doing with this. "Is Moldova the new anti-Russia? And Will we see more armed conflict in Europe?"

 

And here I was, hoping that this thread would be about Moldova bravely resisting the evil Russian influences that want to corrupt it and take it over. Well, I suppose it is, but from the Russian side? (Not going to read RT. I don't need MBFC to tell me that it's a load of bull. I, as a "Born Free American", have already used my own discernment to see that it's fake news.) Blindly accepting a hostile nation's "news" as facts seems very un-American to me.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, I will confess that I sometimes liked to read Pravda, RT, and other RuZZian "news" when I was bored. But I could see then that they were like the foreign equivalent of the "Weekly World News" and not to take the "news" seriously. They're still exactly the same. Where is Russian Batboy?

 

MBFC makes clear that RT is the Russian point of view at BEST. It is more accurately described as the the point of view that the Kremlin's Bureau of Disinformation wants you to believe. Which is frequently divorced from the truth.

 

I encourage everyone to be well-read. Please, everyone exercise liberty in whatever you read. Please diversify your media resources. Never be deterred by virtual book burners.

 

A Tolkien allusion? Why?

 

Sorry Charles, pointing out that trying to get one's news from an inaccurate source that lies all the time is not book burning.

It is difficult to believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you type. It seems more likely to me that you are probably just trolling.

 

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is the president of the Russian Federation.

I see, now, perhaps you hope to refer to the once and future president of the United States.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-he-could-solve-ukraine-war-24-hours-1777298

Full Disclosure: I will be a Trump 2024 Volunteer <3<3<3

 

Again, I reject all forms of thought police. The proclamations of the MBFC are just not relevant to me.

 

Hello!

Well, if I compare the stuff RT writes about Germany to the reality... I can say that they are, um, a little biased. At least. And rivaling 1984s Ministery of Truth at worst.

Best regards,
Mac Juli

 

I actually hoped this discussion could be about Moldova. I became aware of comments made by the Russian Foreign Minister via RT so, I began this thread with a link to the RT article. By beginning with the RT article, I, in no way endorsed or promoted RT. I did not endorse or agree with Mr. Lavrov's statements. We could be discussing Moldova and long-term Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. However, the 'usual suspects here chose to attack the source, as well as yours truly for being so arrogant to use multiple media sources.

 

Examples, please. I actually find RT news coverage very similar to DW news. And Best Regards to you.

 

The statement you provided contains several fallacies, including ad hominem and false equivalency. The statement attacks the credibility of Russia Today by calling it "the worst of the worst" and "worthless drivel," without presenting any concrete evidence to support this claim. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, as it attacks the source of the information rather than the information itself.

The statement also uses false equivalency by implying that news sources like OANN and Newsmax are more credible and closer to reality than Russia Today. This assumption may not be based on evidence and could be misleading, as media bias and accuracy can be subjective and dependent on various factors.
Additionally, the statement implies that Charles is guilty of pushing a certain perspective in the forum, which could be perceived as an attempt to discredit his opinions. This could lead to further polarization and a lack of productive discussion.

It would be more productive to engage in an open-minded and evidence-based discussion of different perspectives, and to provide specific, concrete evidence to support claims or counterarguments.

The statement you provided contains several fallacies, including ad hominem and an appeal to emotion. The statement implies that any source of information or perspective that comes from a certain entity (Russian Times) is automatically untrustworthy and meant to do harm. This is not a logical connection and is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, as it attacks the source of the information rather than the information itself. Additionally, the statement uses emotional language (e.g. "helping the enemy") to appeal to the reader's emotions, rather than presenting a logical argument.

The statement also uses false equivalency by implying that discussing the concept of "anti-Russia" makes people automatically agree with a specific set of assumptions about Russia and the West, which is not necessarily the case. The use of language such as "phantom concept" and "poisonous soup of assumptions" is also an attempt to dismiss an opposing viewpoint without presenting a valid argument against it.
It would be more productive to engage in an open-minded and evidence-based discussion of different perspectives, rather than attacking the sources of those perspectives or making false assumptions about those who hold different viewpoints.

The statement you provided contains several fallacies, including ad hominem and false equivalency. The statement attacks the credibility of the person's beliefs by implying that they do not care about the accuracy of their news sources, which is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Additionally, the statement uses false equivalency by implying that the use of one news source implies a lack of concern for accuracy in general. This is not necessarily the case, and it is important to consider the evidence and arguments presented by each news source rather than making blanket statements about their credibility.

It would be more helpful to have a substantive and evidence-based discussion about the accuracy of the news sources in question, rather than making personal attacks on the person's beliefs or motivations.

 

The argument in the statement makes a false dichotomy. The speaker suggests that there are only two options for improving accuracy in discernment, but there may be other methods or a combination of methods that could also lead to improved accuracy. Additionally, the statement makes an assumption that the person they are speaking to has a goal of having accurate discernment, but this assumption may not be true.

The statement contains an ad hominem fallacy, attacking Charles personally and implying that he has been brainwashed by RT News, instead of addressing the argument or evidence. The statement also assumes that RT News is inaccurate and serves as a tool for thought control, without providing any evidence to support this claim.

Additionally, the use of the 1984 analogy, while potentially fitting with the theme, may not accurately reflect the situation, and should be used with caution.

The statement contains several logical fallacies:
1. Ad Hominem: The statement attacks the patriotism of the person, implying that they are not an American patriot because they supposedly approve of a Russian government program.

2. Strawman: The statement implies that the person promotes the Russian government program while disapproving of an American government program, but the person's original statement did not necessarily imply that.

3. False Analogy: The reference to "North Mordor" and a speech by "khuylo's Munich" is a false analogy that conflates the Russian government with a fictional place from a novel. This analogy is not supported by evidence and therefore undermines the argument.

4. Hasty Generalization: The statement assumes that because the person approves of RT, they must approve of all Russian government programs, which is not necessarily the case.
Overall, the statement contains several logical fallacies that undermine its validity, and the person should provide more evidence to support their claims.

This statement contains the fallacy of ad hominem, which is an attack on the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. The statement suggests that the person is reading and believing "nonsense" and that others should not respect their false assumptions. This is an attempt to discredit the person rather than engage in a productive dialogue about the argument. Additionally, the statement does not provide any evidence to support its claims about the person's assumptions being false.

The statement you provided contains two potential fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem: The speaker attacks Charles' character and accuses him of trolling, rather than addressing the argument or evidence presented. This is a form of personal attack and does not address the validity of the argument.

2. Strawman: The speaker misrepresents Charles' argument by implying that he advocates for using "inaccurate sources that lie all the time." This is a misrepresentation of Charles' argument, and it distracts from the actual argument being made.

It's important to focus on the evidence and arguments presented, rather than making personal attacks or mischaracterizing the other person's position.

It's pretty amazing the lack of logical reasoning in some of these forums.

 

Best regards, too. - . While energy costs increased in 2022, this video did not depict something even close to reality for the average German and European citizen.
One could name a lot of other reasons while one still adheres to the logic of RT ("This was only satire" and some others), but when someone is convinced that RT is goodthinkful or whatever the correct word was, well... impossible to convince them otherwise, I think!

And for that reason, I am out.

 

That's half-right.

Good to know.

 

I see the Tellarites have arrived.

 

Like or hate RT, the article was based on a primary source, a recent interview with Sergey Lavrov.

Here's another article from MSN on the same interview with Sergey Lavrov.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-foreign-minister-speaks-of-moldova-as-the-%E2%80%9Cnext-ukraine%E2%80%9D/ar-AA174c1P?li=BBnb7Kz

 

A nonsensical and inappropriate remark. Reported.

 

Thank you. I do not assume you are an agent or any other sort of proponent of inews.co.uk. because you posted this.