Ukraine vs Russia: Who has the moral high ground?

[NobodySpecial268]

My own opinion is if you wanted to find information on say the Romanian election, one might look for information on the Romanian constitution on the Romanian government website.

If you want information on the fall of Berlin, the Kremlin archives have declassified Soviet documents and photos of the Germans signing the surrender documents. The American military was not there when the Germans capitulated to the Red Army.

It is good manners to cite sources, so other people can read and debunk the information itself if they can.

In the case of the Crimean referendum, the news media reporting is citing an event. So one should dig deeper and verify that the referendum took place and such and such was the outcome.

There is also something called cross-referencing . . .

ETA: Here is an example of cross-referencing. In a post of mine, I referred to Friedrich Merz as an ex-BlackRock employee, and Ursula von der Leyen a gynaecologist. That is not propaganda, that is the results of looking up their work history to verify that it is indeed so, therefore a fact.

Personally, I consider a life of doing what a gynaecologist does, not the best qualification to be President of the European Commission. Similarly, German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock is a former trampolinist. One needs to know what sort of person decides people's future, especially when it relates to going to war.

And by the way, If I were to say Zelensky is a stand-up comedian . . . Well guess what.

[TokenLiberal]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going away too soon either. So I guess you need to provide sources with a low political bias that will get us closer to your truth. That may get my attention, so I'll stay tuned.

If you want me to elaborate on my position, the best way is to ask questions about statements I made, particularly ones you find dubious or feel need more explanation.

My position again: The basis of my moral judgment that Russia is in the wrong is my belief in the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and their state's sovereignty. Russia violated these with their aggressive invasion.

I personally won't believe the following sources, Reuters, NPR, AP, Aljazzera and Fox News (most of the time). My list is much larger, but this is off the top of my head and directly related to the conflict in Ukraine.

Maybe this will help . . .
Media Bias Fact Check

As for sources, when it comes to the war in Ukraine I mostly lean on Wikipedia which is a dry, well-sourced listing of the facts with minimal bias. I also tend to trust low-bias, high quality news orgs like BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. I avoid Russian or Ukrainian sources because they will obviously be extremely biased. In time I will rely on books, but the events are still quite fresh and so far I haven't read any. I plan to read one about Putin though.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I like Wikipedia, but have no faith or trust in it. It can be a starting point, but I'd never rely on it exclusively. I have no confidence in the BBC, the NYT, and the Washington Post either, as they are all left of center and have liberal biases. In addition, I think of the BBC as the TASS of Great Britain.

It will be hard to find sources for all to agree with, in fact, likely an impossible task.

[TokenLiberal]

If you want me to expound upon my position, ask me a question! If you say "citation needed" I will add sources. At that point, if those sources aren't to your liking, we can discuss why I trust them and you don't. But I suspect the facts won't be in dispute. If we disagree, I think the disagreement is more likely to be ideological.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

If you want me to expound upon my position, ask me a question! If you say "citation needed" I will add sources. At that point, if those sources aren't to your liking, we can discuss why I trust them and you don't. But I suspect the facts won't be in dispute. If we disagree, I think the disagreement is more likely to be ideological.

Sources are required IMO; you know we will ask for them if you don't include them. You should have included them in your argument from the beginning. No one should say, "citation needed". That is a cop out.

An ideological disagreement? You mean like the morality of Russia attacking Ukraine? Isn't that what this thread is about? 

There are likely many sources of all kinds that can support any position taken. However, it seems that we must work with the sources of your choice and disregard the others, the very definition of bias. If I refuse to follow your sources and instead go for TASS from Russia or China News Service (CNS) from communist China, I suspect you'll ignore those sources as propaganda while others who have concerns about our news media outlets will also be ignored. What are we left to work with but your hand picked sources?

[TokenLiberal]

Sources are required IMO; you know we will ask for them if you don't include them.

Which claim of mine would you like me to substantiate with sources? That Russia invaded Ukraine? That the Ukrainian people have a right to self-determination? That Ukraine is a sovereign state? I ask because if you already agree with those statements, there is no point in me spending time substantiating them.

There are likely many sources of all kinds that can support any position taken. However, it seems that we must work with the sources of your choice and disregard the others, the very definition of bias.

If you use sensible sources, who says I'm going to reject them? That's just your (false) assumption.

Imagine we were in a discussion about which is the best cola, and you linked an article by Coca Cola to source your claim that Coca Cola is best. I shouldn't be forced to accept that source just to avoid allegations of bias. It is clearly not an acceptable source and my rejecting it is reasonable.

If you think I'm biased for rejecting Putin saying "trust me bro, this war is justified" as evidence that his war is justified, I don't know what to tell you. It's just common sense. If I have to spend pages defending that, I might be wasting my time here.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Which claim of mine would you like me to substantiate with sources? That Russia invaded Ukraine? That the Ukrainian people have a right to self-determination? That Ukraine is a sovereign state? I ask because if you already agree with those statements, there is no point in me spending time substantiating them.


If you use sensible sources, who says I'm going to reject them? That's just your (false) assumption.

Imagine we were in a discussion about which is the best cola, and you linked an article by Coca Cola to source your claim that Coca Cola is best. I shouldn't be forced to accept that source just to avoid allegations of bias. It is clearly not an acceptable source and my rejecting it is reasonable.

If you think I'm biased for rejecting Putin saying "trust me bro, this war is justified" as evidence that his war is justified, I don't know what to tell you. It's just common sense. If I have to spend pages defending that, I might be wasting my time here.

I never said that, remember, I have no position out here in the forest without trees. My only purpose here is to keep on making off topic comments until at least page eight, like you did to my thread a while back. Not to mention you seem to love the last word. Given that, this could last until we fill up the server.

That should be plain enough to someone who is "Thick as a Brick" to quote Jethro Tull.

Now, if you continue to entertain my BS and help me derail your thread, I've accomplished my goal here, in spades. If you stop posting, then it was shut down and more than I had hoped for. Catch 22 I believe, until I get moderated at least. So, what can you expect from a Michigander who lives below the bridge?

ETA: I should stop giving free tips on trolling and sign up to get paid. I just found one on Indeed.com's job board the other day.

[TokenLiberal]

So you're deliberately wasting your own time as well as mine. Why? Because I supposedly derailed your thread? I'm one of the few if not the only one who really engaged with your thread, I did so in good faith, and I thought our discussion was a good one. This seems rather uncalled for and childish.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

So you're deliberately wasting your own time as well as mine. Why? Because I supposedly derailed your thread? I'm one of the few if not the only one who really engaged with your thread, I did so in good faith, and I thought our discussion was a good one. This seems rather uncalled for and childish.

It sure does, don't it? I don't think anyone would say you were engaging my thread with on-topic posts. 

Anyway, just a few more pages and I'll give up.