Can you explain how [4] breaks guidelines, please?
I can see how [1]-[3] might appear contentious, at a very casual glance - but the wording I used in [4] was on its own terms entirely innocuous.
All I'm saying is, basically -- "OK, so that's your position then" (while correctly and relevantly noting also, as you will confirm from the comment history, that they were conspicuously evasive in providing a straightforward answer up until that point).
The follow-up question about the abducted minors (in case you were wondering about that) was entirely legitimate and relevant, as it's one of the many (rather awful and nasty) complications of the conflict that people who think there's an easy "deal" involving territory that just be cut to end this thing typically aren't thinking of (because by and large they aren't following the situation too closely anyway).
They didn't have to answer it of course, but there was nothing uncivil about the question in itself, or my phrasing of it.
Also, you'll note that I'm very carefully and diplomatically defusing their completely gratuitous and uncivil provocation ("I'm not your bitch"), which I notice you did not flag or call out the user on, even though this (in addition to "Are we 12 year olds?", and calling it a "BS question" when it was the exact opposite) was obviously way more inflammatory than any possible reading of my posting.
In this case, you should be calling out the other user for their needlessly inflammatory rhetoric here -- not me, for my far more centered and non-escalatory response.
It would seem you've made a rush to judgement in this case, Dan.
I'm patiently correcting people's broken narratives -- as kindly and magnanimously as anyone reasonably can, given, as in this particular case, the highly provocative and unsubstantiated statements they're making. While remaining direct, human and authentic (that is, without mincing words, or swathing them in undue or superficial gentleness -- considering the sometimes quite crass nature of what they've been saying).
So presumably their view would be that the Allied cause during WW 2 was wholly illegitimate, because after all, those nations had conscription policies as well.
There was no "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" in the commenter's post. To the extent that rambling and evasive rhetoric is being deployed here, it's coming from you.
First you made a plainly irrational (and basically pretty silly) assertion -- that the only people who don't want to own cars are anxiety cases and alcoholics. Right here, on the internet, in front of all these people. And so you got rightly cornered and called out for it.
You then followed that up by attributing a quote to person that you're responding to ("Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks") that they plainly didn't say, and then put it alongside something they did say, in order to claim they were making some kind of contradiction.
It's difficult to see what you might hope to accomplish with such tactics.
Palestine was historically Jewish, long before Islam was even invented in the 600s.
Palestine was historically Canaanite, long before Judaism was even invented in the 1200s BCE. Yes, the Israelites, along with the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Samaritans, the Arab Caliphates, the Seljuks, the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, the Ottomans and others came to occupy the land at different times -- but before these illegal conquests, the indigenous people of the land were solidly of Canaanite origin, heritage and culture. Considering the land as belonging to a different people doesn’t make sense to me.
So I am not sure what is controversial or disgusting.
Microsoft's providing matching donations to groups seeking to maintain Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank (including at least one military academy), under the guise of supporting "charitable" donations -- is what some people find controversial and disgusting.
And yet sometimes that's exactly what's happening -- and it needs to be called out.
Not the "foreign agents" part; that's your insinuation of what the parent commenter said. But there's an unusual degree commonality to the talking points and flat-out factually wrong narratives that people continually post about this conflict -- such that some of them (like "Ukraine wanted to negotiate, but...") we literally hear several times a day.
It doesn't matter what sources they are uncritically adopting these garbage narratives from. It's just propaganda, straight up, and quite obviously so.
The Ukrainians will decide for themselves if and when to negotiate, and on what terms.
They will also decide -- for themselves -- whether the losses they are taking are sustainable, or "worth" the just end to this war that they seek.
Your idea of what they "need", what is worth dying for or otherwise valuable to them, or your general view of their government -- just doesn't factor into it.