352
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago

When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I'm not talking companies or anything else. You're dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can't admit it, to yourself or others.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

When US government provides resources to these people, is it good or bad?

And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You're either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you're just dishonest. Either way not a good look.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago

Still didn't answer the question. More What-aboutism. How unexpected! /s

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

I did answer your question in detail, and it's safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That's just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago

You didn't, and I didn't use What-aboutism. I pointed out that you did. You said "what about...." What's wrong with you?

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago

You libs always want to demand every single historical event be perceived and analyzed in a vacuum. This is why you get mocked so often.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago

I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I'm referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you're fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is "intellectual dishonesty" but using it is totally OK.

I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn't because it was wrong to ask.

This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.

That's be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It's either "I never did", "yes", or "no". Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they'll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, "what about..."). It's avoiding the question.

this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
352 points (91.9% liked)

World News

32282 readers
840 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS