I would like to encourage more people on this platform to humbly bow out and respond with integrity when they don’t know versus the “20 replies of arguments” that drown out the conversation. You might be correct but I think your response is in poor form (unless we’re just celebrating being the lowest parts of social media).
You admitted you never even read the resolution in the first place, and just assumed it based on “Russia bad”. No one strawmanned you, you just shout the name of random fallacies as a thought terminating cliche
Not knowing enough to respond never stopped you before, given you were making claims about the content of a resolution you admitted you didn’t know the content of
The first instance of this resolution is A/C.3/68/L.65 from November 2013.
I did not know that and don’t know enough to respond. I’ll leave this conversation to the other guy who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Owned
I would like to encourage more people on this platform to humbly bow out and respond with integrity when they don’t know versus the “20 replies of arguments” that drown out the conversation. You might be correct but I think your response is in poor form (unless we’re just celebrating being the lowest parts of social media).
And all it took was someone responding with actual information, instead of 20 people responding with a straw man attack.
You admitted you never even read the resolution in the first place, and just assumed it based on “Russia bad”. No one strawmanned you, you just shout the name of random fallacies as a thought terminating cliche
Not knowing enough to respond never stopped you before, given you were making claims about the content of a resolution you admitted you didn’t know the content of