No those are facts. Simple as that. What is your contention exactly with what I said?
> what the fuck is your point?
Why the aggressiveness? We are all here to have a peaceful conversation. You may disagree with me and that is fine but we don't have to get at each other's throat.
> Do you really think the UK is as bad or worse then Russia?
You must have missed part of my comment if you are asking this question.
> Russia is bad, terrible even
That's from my comment.
> Of course we can and should criticize other countries
Exactly my point. I am criticizing all the countries that infringe on human rights and that includes Russia and the UK an whoever else engages in these sorts of things.
My point was that simply asserting that the West respects human rights when we know that that is not always the case is the like the pot calling the kettle black.
You can go and give lessons of democracy and human rights when you stop detaining your own citizens for arbitrary reasons and without cause and without having the right to be represented by a lawyer.
Now, if you think that this is perfectly acceptable in a democracy, then I guess we don't have the same concept of human rights then.
I didn't say they weren't facts. I said it's whatoboutism:
> Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
>
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
The topic is Russia dividing and conquering the USA from Europe and other nations. Not: are Europe perfectly living up to its stated humanist goals.
> Why the aggressiveness?
I guess it comes from this being a very common tactic to shut down any criticism and debate. Maybe you didn't mean to do that, in that case I'm sorry for assigning malignant intentions.
No those are facts. Simple as that. What is your contention exactly with what I said?
> what the fuck is your point?
Why the aggressiveness? We are all here to have a peaceful conversation. You may disagree with me and that is fine but we don't have to get at each other's throat.
> Do you really think the UK is as bad or worse then Russia?
You must have missed part of my comment if you are asking this question.
> Russia is bad, terrible even
That's from my comment.
> Of course we can and should criticize other countries
Exactly my point. I am criticizing all the countries that infringe on human rights and that includes Russia and the UK an whoever else engages in these sorts of things.
My point was that simply asserting that the West respects human rights when we know that that is not always the case is the like the pot calling the kettle black.
You can go and give lessons of democracy and human rights when you stop detaining your own citizens for arbitrary reasons and without cause and without having the right to be represented by a lawyer.
Now, if you think that this is perfectly acceptable in a democracy, then I guess we don't have the same concept of human rights then.