No, actually it is a witty rhetorical question where I use your own logic to come to an absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) in order to demonstrate just how crazy your logic is. Explanation: You are essentially claiming that only a person that has first had real experience of "Russia" can make claims about Russia at the same time as you are making claims about Debiman without having any first hand experience of him. You are also saying that Alexander Yakovenko knows less about Russia than a uneducated drunk in Moscow, because Yakovenko lives in London.None1975 wrote: Sorry, bro. It is stupid question....
No I don't think that, as I said that in my earlier post... Maybe something was "lost in translation" but I tried to say that Western Media is biased and that if anything is a fact. But you evade the question that I asked you, and you so so because it hurts (the truth).Bro, you think, that Western mass media is not biased? If so, you are stupid..
Some times when I read pro-Russia arguments which heavily use the "Western bias"-card I am reminded of 1980's postmodernists like Michel Foucault. You know, the kind of person that would be "critical" against anything without offering any better alternative. They would say things like "aboriginals are not selfish, because selfishness is a Western thing". Then some one would show them numbers about behavioral studies comparing Western and non-Western populations and they would respond: "yes, but measurement and science is a Western thing and is biased". Just replace "selfish" here with "democracy" and you get this thread.