353
Exclusive: US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine (www.reuters.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
467 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 16 points 3 years ago (9 children)

It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren't historically illiterate, then you'd also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.

Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (6 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago

    Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That's what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.

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

    I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can't comprehend that says volumes.

    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.

    Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the question it's calling out your bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent