The specific subject of the thread is this:
The “hypocrisy” under investigation is the reactions to events in Ukraine by Russia on the one hand and Ukrainian protesters on the other - which is not a tu quoque issue at all. The allegation is of double standards for Russians vs. Ukrainians - which i think is easily refutable, but which is not a tu quoque fallacy.
BBC reports that the same pro-Russian woman keeps cropping up in various locations in Ukraine using various different names, leading to a trend of news watchers looking for more fakes.
It’s not a “but Iraq” argument. It is a recognition-of-fact argument that more egregious violations of sovereign national borders have certainly occurred. It’s not a “but Iraq” argument because I am not arguing for less penalty against Putin than what Western nations believe can be applied as long as direct military action is not part of it
I recognize that West must not have to pay a price for violating laws but that does not mean Putin should be given a pass.
But I do see why you wish to rid the debate of one critical aspect that applies to it. There is a twinge of moral antagonism with your argument when its there.
Tu quoque is generally considered an informal fallacy in any argument, not a “critical aspect” of the debate.
I disagree. Bringing up other under occupation elections that the West has backed is perfectly valid in a “hypocrisy” debate on this topic.
Jonathan, with all due respect I was sarcastically accusing myself and the other posters who don’t take the America-is-always-right line, of “lying”.
I can’t see why I would accuse other poster who agree with me of well, anything, it’d be absurd…other than what it was, clearly a tongue-in-cheek post.
A look at Wiki suggests that there were two or three different constitutions approved in 1992, one of which stated that the Crimea was independent… I have no idea which one the referendum is referring to. Common sense would suggest that you’re correct, and it will be the one that was adopted for more than one day, but common sense doesn’t seem to be all that common there at the moment.
When I hear about Yarosh I think he can be compared to the most notorious terrorists like bin Laden or Dokka Umarov. BTW Yarosh asked Umarov to help and carry out attacks against Russia. Right from the start Yarosh played a huge role in protests and manipulating the whole thing in Ukraine so asking for terrorist help puts him in the same row because only terrorists collaborate with terrorists and ask for help. And after this I’m not surprised that everything in Ukraine gone wild and I really doubt that such aggressors could do anything to help Ukraine and turn it into true European state.
A lot of that sort of thing going on:
And it seems to be working too, judging from some in this thread.
Gosh, that sounds familiar…
Which is not to say that the other side of the argument is pristine - there were certainly fascists and right-wing nationalists among the protesters, some of which are in the new government - but to suggest that what happened in Kiev and what is happening now in the Crimea is ludicrous.
And for those who think that what happened in Iraq means that the West ought to stay out of it: frankly, what happened in Iraq ought to mean that everyone else should know how badly these things turn out. “Two wrongs” and all that.
Not one word from Western leaders about the unconstitutionality of the coup in Ukraine – on the contrary, they all back it and praise it as a show of “the will of the people” – but they’re considering Crimea’s referendum unconstitutional.
No hypocrisy there, no Siree.
Way to ignore the entirety of this thread there, RedFury.
AFAIR, there is a provision for impeachment in Ukrainian Constitution. The impeachment passed in the Parliament by a huge majority. What exactly is unconstitutional?
As I’ve said to you before: The vote was under duress because the protestors had stormed the buildings. They could have at least waited a frigging day or two after that if they wanted the vote to appear legitimate.
You claim it was under duress. You haven’t provided any evidence. Like, for example, testimony of a parliament member recanting his vote.
The fact that the government leader had fled and that the opposition suddenly all switched from voting for an interim government to impeachment is all the proof I need. Frankly, I think the presence of an armed mob occupying the government buildings puts the onus on you to show there wasn’t duress.
On the contrary – it’s right on point if short and sweet.
Have a great Monday.
First of all, the opposition that didn’t want to impeach left the parliament. And after that, still a huge majority voted to impeach.
It’s simple - the mob is not there now (it wasn’t there before, either. At most, it was right outside the building) - it isn’t even outside the building. You can’t show that even one of the parliament members that voted to impeach Yanukovich has recanted his vote or claims it was under duress. Your argument of “duress” is bunk.
Well, except that up thread this was debunked of course. But even if it wasn’t and in fact it’s true, it was purely an internal matter…as opposed to what’s happening in the Crimea. Which is the core point on the whole supposed ‘hypocrisy’ issue. Well, unless you believe that the US/EU was in fact behind the angry mobs ousting the old government (perhaps with some hidden US/NATO commando types helping things along and making sure the ‘vote’ went the way the US/NATO/EU/Jews wanted it too…or something). Otherwise, it’s hard to see the hypocrisy between what Russia is doing in both the Ukraine and Crimea and what various western leaders did or said in response to a purely internal power change in the Ukraine.
Yes. Not Germans.
SK military is controlled by the US in time of war
South Korea is an appendage of the empire. Thought that was common knowledge
Then you don’t really understand what the ‘tu quoque’ form of argument is. The essence of it is the allegation that ‘you’ (meaning the US here) have done the same thing that ‘you’ are accusing others of doing, and so are in no position to complain - for example, ‘you’ have invaded Iraq, so ‘you’ can’t complain about Russia invading Crimea.
Complaining about the West/US having double standards for the actions of others simply isn’t a tu quoque.