208
Catherine, Princess of Wales, Has Cancer (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been diagnosed with cancer and has begun chemotherapy, she announced in a video message on Friday, in which she described the past two months as “incredibly tough for our entire family.”

It comes after a period of intense uncertainty about the health of Catherine, who underwent abdominal surgery in January and largely disappeared from public view as she tried to recuperate.

Like the king, Catherine, 42, did not specify what kind of cancer she has, but asked the public and news media to respect her desire for privacy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

I would think that if you were arguing for why every single descendant of Queen Victoria and their spouses deserve a horrible agonizing death, you would use examples that didn't show them doing things that were a net benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not gonna sit here and defend the tankies in hexbear but I find sh.itjust works and kbin to have just as many shitty extremists like that piece of shit with no empathy. They never get called out like the others but I have blocked far more accounts from those two feds.

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

    I'll pile on the confirmation bias for sh.itjust.works being full of either awful or idiotic users. Not all of them and maybe not even most of them but enough of them that it's left a very noticable impression.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Well I did give you two more articles to read that clearly demonstrate it but you simply chose to ignore them. Plus whether or not it benefits them directly is besides the point.

    It's up to y'all to prove that these leeches are a net positive to society at large.

    Nevermind the strawman that I want them to have agonizing death. I clearly stated that the guillotine would be preferable. Fast and efficient.

    You can go now, it's already asking a lot to interact with bootlickers, but I won't tolerate people who act in bad faith. Bye! 👋

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

    Plus whether or not it benefits them directly is besides the point.

    I see, so you don't think her going to Ghana benefited Britain, which is what I asked you about. Interesting that you claim that I'm acting in bad faith after saying that...

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

    Again you are putting words in my mouth. And refuse to address the points that don't back up your point of view. All while moving the goal post of the original point.

    Y'all do understand what eat the rich means, right?

    Psssssht psssssht. Can you hear that? It's my can of SycophantBeGone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    I see, so now you've moved beyond hoping descendants of Queen Victoria and the people they marry get cancer and now hope that anyone above a certain income level gets cancer.

    Which is weird, because just a few posts up you said you wouldn't want her kids to get cancer if they renounced the monarchy... even though they would still be rich.

    And I'm the one arguing in bad faith?

    Also, you said you were going to stop talking to me and you're still talking to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent