In case you're not familiar, Whataboutism is a term for the logical fallacy you're using.
en.wikipedia.org
Armenian Genocide (?)
- 主题发起人 Janissary1453
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Historical vicissitudes can absolutely have an impact many years down the road, even more if ruled by the same country for centuries. You can see a difference in voting patterns, literacy rate and gdp in regions like vojvodina, transylvania, pomerania, silessia etc in contrast to their respective countries that line up quite suspiciously along the borders of Austro-Hungary or imperial Germany. The same can be said of east/west germany, and confederate/northern US.
because someone wanted to open it.
If you are so sure it happened you are wasted here you should go to EU council or something. And here is a reddit link:
由板主最后编辑:
Posting links to biased or plain wrong sources and claiming it as proof or something... the Wheel turns once more.
The topic isn't biased, but you sure are. And of course you weren't sharing that as proof or anything, you just coincidentally put it there, right?
You just don't get it, the topic ITSELF is biased!
The topic has become sentient and it became aware of its subject matter, which is why I agree with HUMMAN; the topic ITSELF is biased!
The topic told me it would side on the western citizen conspiracy side and try to shut up any turkish opinion which may enlighten us, ignorant peoples from the western hemisphere, on the Armenian Genocide.
The topic itself voted "Yes" on the poll and has also given all of us the mission to crush any Turkish non-believer. Also, we are bound by duty to never rely on such things as reason and fact checking to debate on equal grounds with deniers; it entertains the topic itself! But ultimately, the topic ITSELF will intervene and side with us, it will thoroughly and convincingly beat those who dare utter their truth, because the topic is biased!
Get it Vermillion? You're wrong on everything. Semantics made it that way, even though english is not a language I'm very familiar with, I can tell you that.
Open your eyes! WORDS! DEFINITIONS! All biased against the truth, the Armenian Genocide is blackwhite and doublethink!
Humman, even if I disagree with you I'm interested on your view on the events. Why do you say the topic is biased? Do you think it did not happen, or was exaggerated? That it did happen but was not endorsed by the government? Or that it was perpetrated by the government unintentionally or as unavoidable collateral damage?
no
I mean you can always research further if there's some sort of source given for the text you are reading but assuming it's biased or false information based on the opinion that source hold is nothing but bias itself. Particularly on this topic everyone acts like they are the sole group of people who holds single truth and anyone says otherwise is ignorant.
it's somewhat ironic you say that given that you're assuming somebody's reasons for calling it biased and then making judgments based on that assumption.
you could ask, i suppose?
it tends to work better than generalisations and assumptions.
it tends to work better than generalisations and assumptions.
How this even works? So now we have to ask the person, who claims the sources are false or biased, his humble opinion as an addition so that he can grant his knowledge to us. Isn't it something that he supposed to do at the first place, at least in order to avoid assumption of people that he did not make a research on the sources?
最后编辑:
it might have been preferable if it was explained right away, yes. that doesn't really excuse leaping to assumptions about their reasons though.
Well, next time professor ask me why i submit my paper as one sentence without explaining the topic and research i have done i can answer proudly that he have never asked for it. I bet he won't just assume that i did not put any effort or did not any research.
If someone claims he should bring his arguments and research. Without those, it won't be an healthy conduct anyway. Then it's pointless to discuss if everyone will just answer with "Your argument is wrong" without explaining the reasons behind it.
If someone claims he should bring his arguments and research. Without those, it won't be an healthy conduct anyway. Then it's pointless to discuss if everyone will just answer with "Your argument is wrong" without explaining the reasons behind it.
